Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Middle East (Talks)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the four-Power talks on the Middle East.

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the four-Power conference on the Middle East.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest developments in the four-Power talks on the Middle East.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of the four-Power talks on the Middle East.

Sir T. Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made in recent discussions with the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France regarding a settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have nothing to add to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), on 16th June.—[Vol. 784, c. 28–34.]

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a state of war again exists in the Middle East? In view of that, will he endeavour to inject a sense of urgency into these rather leisurely talks? Does he further agree that there is little prospect of stability while one member State of the United Nations continues to occupy the territories of three other member States?

Mr. Stewart: We are well aware of the urgency of this. However, the second part of my hon. Friend's question, although concentrating on one real aspect of the problem, has not put it in proportion with all the other matters which have to be considered.

Mr. Judd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread respect both in this country and abroad for the objectivity of Her Majesty's Government's policy on that issue? Is he further aware of the view frequently repeated that a solution can be found only if it enjoys the support of all the parties to the dispute?

Mr. Stewart: I firmly believe that to be so, and Her Majesty's Government were able to be helpful in the earlier discussions. I hope that the opportunity will arise again.

Mr. Goodhart: As reports from Cairo suggest that the Egyptian-Soviet stand would make it difficult to make progress in the four-Power talks, what action is the right hon. Gentleman taking to stimulate direct talks between Israel and her Arab neighbours?

Mr. Stewart: I have said in earlier debates that the failure to agree to direct talks was very difficult for people in this country to understand. I think that we have to accept that it is not easy—indeed perhaps it is impossible—to get them at present, and we must try to make progress through the four-Power talks.

Mr. Wood: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say anything about the recent visit of Mr. Gromyko to Egypt?

Mr. Stewart: Not without notice.

China (Detained British Subjects)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs when he now expects the release of the British journalist Anthony Grey and other British subjects illegally detained by the Chinese Government; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Chinese have linked the imprisonment of certain news workers in Hong Kong with the detention of Mr. Grey in Peking. Under normal circumstances all the news workers in question will be reased with full remission by early October.
The Chinese have given no indication of their intentions about other British subjects, some of whom they allege have violated Chinese law.

Mr. Molloy: Has my right hon. Friend made clear to the Chinese Government the utter loathing and contempt which is felt not only by Members of this House and British journalists but by the British people with regard to Mr. Anthony Grey and other people illegally detained by the Chinese Communist Government? Can he say whether there has been an improvement in the transmission of letters and other communications between Mr. Grey and his relatives and journalists interested in his case and, indeed, to other people held by the Chinese authorities?

Mr. Stewart: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we have made the most frequent representations both in Peking and here. We have made it very clear what the opinion of people in this country and of Her Majesty's Government is on this matter.
On the second part of his question, we believe that letters to Mr. Grey from his mother are reaching him. Members of our Mission visited Mr. Grey in April and November, 1968. They were not consular visits but special visits in exchange for extra visits to the news workers imprisoned in Hong Kong.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Has the right hon. Gentleman made it clear to both Peking and Moscow that if they continue this kind of behaviour all that they will do is put off British industrialists visiting their countries, bearing in mind that already we have an adverse balance with both of them?

Mr. Stewart: This aspect of the matter has been made clear to both countries.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are now detained without trial in Communist China; how many of these have been denied access to British representatives; and what action he is now taking in respect of these people.

Mr. Stewart: There are 12 British subjects detained without trial in China. I will, with permission, circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Access by British representatives has been allowed only in the case of Mr. Anthony Grey, who was visited by officials of the British Mission in Peking in April and November, 1968.
Our Mission in Peking has made repeated requests to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs for information about detained British subjects and for consular access to them. In addition Foreign Office Ministers and officials have raised their cases on numerous occasions with the Chinese Chargé d'Affaires in London; the last occasion being on 19th May.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: But has the right hon. Gentleman impressed on the Chinese that this conduct is completely outside ordinary civilised behaviour, and that they and their representatives can hardly expect to be treated as other than barbarians if they continue to behave like this?

Mr. Stewart: We have made this very clear to the Chinese, and so have the Governments of other countries whose nationals are similarly treated.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's view would be more welcome if they would show similar concern for the hundreds of black people detained without trial by the Smith régime, and if they used similar terms about the Smith régime as they do about the Chinese Government?

Mr. Stewart: I hope that everyone in the House detests the arbitrary use of power and the denial of human rights in all parts of the world.

Following is the list:

British Subjects detained or believed to be detained in China

Mr. Anthony Grey, Reuters correspondent in Peking who was placed under house arrest on 21st July, 1967;


Mr. Norman Barrymaine, a freelance journalist who was detained in Shanghai on 23rd February, 1968, when he was a passenger aboard a Polish ship;
Mr. P. D. Crouch, Second Officer of the "Demodocus", who was detained in Shanghai on 3rd April, 1968;
Captain P. M. Will, Master of the "Kota Jaya" who was detained at Tang-ku off Tientsin on or about 3rd July, 1968;
Mr. Eric Gordon, his wife and thirteen-year-old son, who were detained shortly before they were due to leave China at the beginning of November 1967;
Mr. D. C. Johnston, the former manager of the Shanghai branch of the Chartered Bank who was detained in Shanghai on 25th August, 1968;
Mrs. Epstein (née Elsie Fairfax-Cholmondley), Mr. Michael Shapiro and Mr. David Crook, who were employed by the Chinese authorities and who are believed to have been detained towards the end of 1967; and
Mrs. Gladys Yang, believed to have been detained in July 1968.
In addition, Mr. George Watt, an engineer working on a "whole-plant" contract in Lanchow, was detained on 26th September, 1967 and sentenced to three years imprisonment for alleged espionage on 15th March, 1968.

Overseas Countries (British Prisoners)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current state of negotiations designed to secure the release of the United Kingdom citizens illegally imprisoned in foreign countries; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: While we do not necessarily approve of the legal systems and judicial processes of all other countries, so far as I am aware, no British subjects are imprisoned in foreign countries except in accordance with the provisions of local law. We must accept that British nationals are subject to the laws and legal proceedings operative in countries in which they may be at any given time.

Mr. Molloy: Will my right hon. Friend say whether, when a British subject is arrested or detained overseas, there is immediate investigation by his Department and will he state what sort of help a British subject is offered before and after any arrest?

Mr. Stewart: British subjects who are either prisoners awaiting trial or undergoing sentences of imprisonment receive regular visits from our consular officers who provide them with all possible assistance and see that they have legal advice.

Greece (Trials of Political Prisoners)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will arrange to send an observer to attend some of the trials of political prisoners taking place in Greece.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frederick Mulley): Although it is not our normal practice to appoint official observers to trials of this kind, Her Majesty's Embassy in Athens keeps a close watch on the trials in Greece and from time to time is represented at them.

Mr. Winnick: That is a very encouraging reply.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new wave of arrests and political persecution taking place in Greece is further proof of the need to expel the Greek colonels from the Council of Europe?

Mr. Mulley: As my hon. Friend knows, the Greek Government have been made aware of the strong feelings in this country about political prisoners and their treatment.
On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend said on 7th May reporting the Resolution adopted by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. I think that my hon. Friend also knows that these matters are being pursued by the European Commission of Human Rights, whose report we expect quite soon.

British Honduras (Defence)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will give a defence guarantee against external aggression to the colony of British Honduras when she achieves independence.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Maurice Foley): No, Sir. The defence


of British Honduras after independence is one of the many problems which will have to be discussed with the British Hondurans and is a matter which will no doubt be raised at any conference about independence. In these circumstances it is premature to talk about assurances.

Mr. Fisher: In view of the not unjustied historical fears of British Honduras about her territorial integrity, will the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not unreasonable that she should ask for, and that we should give, some defence guarantee when she assumes the responsibilities of independence? Surely, if we can invade Anguilla we can defend British Honduras?

Mr. Foley: I do not want to go into the question of Anguilla, because there are other Questions about it on the Order Paper. We are fully aware of the anxieties of the people of British Honduras, and we share with them the hopes that a means of settling the British Honduras-Guatemala dispute can be found, so that British Honduras can proceed to independence on the best possible terms with her neighbour.

Mr. Braine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the genuine anxiety that exists in the colony about the future? Surely, the best service that Her Majesty's Government can provide is to give a firm assurance that, before there is any question of independence, there will be a general election at which the real desires of the people can be ascertained?

Mr. Foley: Yes, I am aware of that.

Anguilla

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of Anguilla.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about a long-term solution of the Anguilla problem.

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's reply of 16th June to the hon. Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch

(Mr. Cordle), to which I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 785, c 12–13.]

Mr. Marten: Will the Foreign Sectary clarify the statement made by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when he arrived in Anguilla, that the Anguillans need not be administered by an Administration that they do not want? Does it or does it not mean that the Anguillans, if they do not wish to be administered from St. Kitts, will not be?

Mr. Stewart: I repeat the assurance which I gave in the House. It is no part of our policy that the people of Anguilla should be under a régime that they do not want. That was repeating and taking up what my hon. Friend had previously said.

Mr. Fisher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Caribbean Commission, which is to study the problem, is likely to be appointed and when he will be in a position to announce the name of the chairman and the Commission's terms of reference?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot give a date at present, but I hope that there will not be very much delay.

Mr. Braine: Indeed, there was talk, when Mr. Bradshaw was over here, of the Caribbean Commission. As British troops are still in occupation in Anguilla, is there not an element of urgency in this situation? Should not the Caribbean Commission have already been set up?

Mr. Stewart: No, I do not think so. This matter needs consideration and requires agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Associated State. But I will see that there is no unnecessary delay about it.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the number of visits paid by the Governor of St. Barthelemy to Anguilla during the past 18 months; and what were the reasons for such visits.

Mr. M. Stewart: None, Sir. There is no Governor of Saint Barthelemy. The hon. Gentleman may have in mind Monsieur de Heinem, who is a leading citizen of Saint Barthelemy and who has,


I understand, made a number of visits on private business to Anguilla in recent years.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the correction. Can he say for what reason the recent visits were made by this gentleman to Anguilla, in his own private aeroplane? Is it not a fact that many people think that he is behind the recent troubles and unrest? What investigation is the right hon. Gentleman making into this?

Mr. Stewart: In the first place, these were private visits by a private individual, about private business. I know of no evidence to support the suggestion that the hon. Member makes, and I do not think that there were any visits in this calendar year.

European Economic Community

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now initiate a new comprehensive study on the economic effects of joining the Common Market.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies are now being made in his Department of the economic costs of joining the Common Market.

Mr. M. Stewart: We are certainly keeping the possibility of studies under review. But in present circumstances as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 10th June, there is no reason to change the general estimates given to the House during the Common Market debate two years ago.—[Vol. 784, c. 1225.]

Mr. Marten: But does not the Foreign Secretary recall that very few estimates were given to this House and that the information simply is not being disclosed to this country? Is it not very curious for the Government to try to join the European Economic Community, not knowing what the economic effects will be?

Mr. Stewart: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He pointed out that it would simply be doing a disservice to the House to try to give a detailed calculation of the effects of all the factors that would

be operating on the balance of payments in the first few years afer our entry. That was why I used the phrase "general estimates". I do not think that I could go further than that at present.

Mrs. Short: Has my right hon. Friend not yet learned the lesson of trying to push unacceptable legislation that the country does not want? Is he aware that since the Prime Minister made his statement two years ago, devaluation has taken place and that, therefore, the whole of the economic estimates made two years ago are now out of gear? Does he not think that, instead of asking the British people to buy a pig in a poke, we should be given all the information so that we can make up our minds?

Mr. Stewart: The decision to make an application to join the Common Market received overwhelming support from the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and I believe that it still has that support.

Mr. Farr: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, since the debate two years ago, we have witnessed the complete failure of the Common Market's agricultural policy? Surely it is absolutely right that the House should have a current economic assessment of that factor alone.

Mr. Stewart: Yes. But the point that I am making, as was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is that we cannot make detailed estimates of matters of this kind.

Mrs. Short: Why not?

Mr. Moonman: While it may be necessary to learn from previous lessons and to talk about buying a pig in a poke, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, at any future study, he might also take account of the latest information on the technological advantages of going into the Market, which would make the complete case, even to the most discerning critic?

Mr. Stewart: I think that that is a matter which has to be brought into the argument.

Gibraltar

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to secure the withdrawal by the Spanish Government of the restrictions placed by


them on normal travel to and from Gibraltar.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Spanish Government are aware of our view that the closure of the land frontier between Gibraltar and Spain is entirely unjustified. We have also made clear our determination and ability to sustain Gibraltar. If the Spanish Government wish to create the right atmosphere for progress towards a settlement, they must as a first step stop harassing the Gibraltarians.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While fully endorsing what the Foreign Secretary has just said, may I ask whether the time has now come to apply some pressure to Spain? Has the right hon. Gentleman, in this context, considered the withdrawal of landing rights for Spanish civil aircraft at Heathrow, which would seem appropriate in itself and particularly because, in the event of, retaliation, it would damage their tourist industry?

Mr. Stewart: The House will remember that I made it clear that we would have to be satisfied that any retaliatory measures were likely to be of help to the Gibraltarians and were not of a kind which might do more damage to this country and to Gibraltar than to Spain. We have examined a number of possibilities. We are examining others, and I will include the one mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
I should draw attention to what was said by Sir Joshua Hassan in Gibraltar on 13th June on retaliation, when he said:
If I may say so, on this point I fully understand the view taken in the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Whitaker: Would it be feasible to defray the costs of the economic burden placed on Gibraltar by a small levy on British tourists going to Spain and a similar one for the costs of Rhodesian sanctions on tourists going to South Africa?

Mr. Stewart: These are attractive ideas, but I doubt very much whether it will be possible to make them practicable.

Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government will sustain the people of Gibraltar in this difficulty, and with that the whole House is in agreement, but will he confirm that the extraordinary expenditure arising in

Gibraltar as a result of the Spanish blockade is being covered by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Stewart: Before giving an absolute 100 per cent. answer to that I should like to look more closely into it. We are giving very considerable help to Gibraltar, and we shall do our best to see that they can maintain their position.

Greece (Military and Economic Co-operation)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to strengthen military and economic co-operation with Greece within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Mulley: None, Sir. But in the communiqué issued after their meeting last month the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's Defence Ministers referred to plans for the improvement of local forces in the Mediterranean area. These plans, which are confidential, are a matter for the collective decision of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as a whole.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the widespread knowledge that the Greeks are seeking suppliers of frigates for N.A.T.O. use, does not the right hon. Gentleman owe it to the House of Commons to indicate whether or not this is business which the Government would welcome?

Mr. Mulley: We have not received a request for an export licence for the sale of frigates or any major item of military equipment to Greece. As my right hon. Friend said last week, we consider such requests in the N.A.T.O. context, but, as a matter of fact, since the coup d'état of 1967 we have made no significant supplies of arms to Greece.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that the requirement of N.A.T.O. is to protect freedom and democracy, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this could hardly be the policy pursued by the present Greek Government, and would not he also agree that the whole matter of Greece's future in N.A.T.O. must be looked at in the same way as it will be in relation to the Council of


Europe following the Report of the Commission of Human Rights?

Mr. Mulley: I think that these are two quite distinct questions, and as far as I know no member country of N.A.T.O. has suggested that Greece should be expelled from N.A.T.O.

Mr. Wood: May I press the right hon. Gentleman further on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). In view of the great importance of Greece to N.A.T.O., is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to look favourably on any request that the Government may make for arms for their country?

Mr. Mulley: I think that one has to examine carefully any requests when they are received, but, as I have said, we have had no requests for an export licence for any of these items.

Nigeria (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set a time limit to the continued supply of British arms to Nigeria in view of the protraction of the war with Biafra.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now impose a time limit on the supply of arms by the United Kingdom to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

Mr. Foley: I do not believe that setting a time limit on our continued supply of arms to the Federal Government would help to bring a settlement nearer.

Mr. Barnes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that following the shooting down of a Red Cross plane in daylight and the harassing of Dr. Lindt, all relief flights into Biafra have stopped? Will he reaffirm the pledge given a year ago by the Foreign Secretary that if an attempt is made to starve the Biafrans into submission the British policy of underwriting Nigeria's policy by supplying arms will be changed?

Mr. Foley: There is another Question on the Order Paper on this subject. Efforts have been made for many months to open up land corridors. There is hope that something might happen in this respect.

The International Red Cross has been pressing for daylight flights, the Federal Government have supported them in principle, but the person who has not has been the representative in the secessionist area.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think the House has really been entirely convinced in previous debates that arms to Nigeria could not be policed in the context of an international agreement. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Foreign Secretary is pursuing the possibility of getting the four Powers or many Powers, to agree to some limitation?

Mr. Foley: There have been discussions. The position at the moment is that the French deny that they are supplying arms. The Russians have said that they will continue to supply arms. The Portuguese are providing transit and other facilities, and intend to continue to do so. The problem in terms of getting an international arms embargo is that unless it is policed in the country, and unless it is accepted on both sides, it is meaningless. We require the approval of both sides in the conflict if we are to get any effective arms embargo. We have maintained that this can happen only at the same time as there is a cease-fire which also is policed. The prerequisite for all this is that both sides are willing to sit down and talk. There is no lack of outside mediators. There is an absence of a will to mediate.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, following the withdrawal by the Lagos Government of its offer to Biafra of negotiations without conditions, if he will now end the supply of arms from Great Britain and propose through the United Nations that France, Russia and Portugal should stop arms from going to either side.

Mr. Foley: No, Sir. My hon. Friend is mistaken in his belief that the Federal Nigerian Government have withdrawn their offer of negotiations without preconditions for an end to the conflict in Nigeria. The Federal Government fully maintain their readiness to negotiate a peaceful settlement as explained by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2nd April.—[Vol. 781, c. 485–6.]

Mr. Allaun: But why do not the Government even attempt to obtain a joint ban on arms, particularly since Biafra's only inlet point, Uli, could easily be policed on the spot, a proceeding to which she has agreed?

Mr. Foley: I agree that if we can get agreement by both sides for policing on the spot we can move, but so far that has not been possible.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Surely the Foreign Secretary should look again at the Resolution of the Assembly of the Council of Europe which, on 15th May, asked that there should be a total arms embargo. This was carried with no opposition. It is clear that Colonel Ojukwu would agree to an arms embargo, and would agree to police it and to reveal those black market sources common to both sides.

Mr. Foley: I have read the Resolution and I sympathise very much with it—

Mr. Fraser: Do something about it.

Mr. Foley: The point is, as I have said, that an international arms embargo can be effective only if accepted by both sides. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) has had the advantage, which many hon. Members have not, of having been and spoken to Colonel Ojukwu. I should still be interested in something which I have never yet heard—an authoritative public statement from Colonel Ojukwu that he would accept and police an international arms embargo and a cease-fire, and that he would be willing to sit down and discuss these matters with the other side.

Europe (Nuclear-Free Zone)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the political differences which make it inappropriate for him to undertake an initiatve to achieve a nuclear-free zone in Europe.

Mr. Mulley: As I told my hon. Friend on 25th April, progress on European security measures cannot be disassociated from progress in resolving the political problems of the Continent. The continuing division of Germany lies at the heart of these problems. We continue to seek a more secure Europe, but account must be taken of the close links between

the question of European security and the German problem.—[Vol. 782, c. 141.]

Mr. Jenkins: But is not the position that the development of gas centrifuge means that there is grave danger, while Germany remains divided, of both sides becoming possessed of a nuclear capability, and if this is allowed to happen will not the possibility of getting a nuclear-free zone recede even further? Is not the matter urgent, and will my right hon. Friend act?

Mr. Mulley: I think that my hon. Friend is completely mistaken in thinking that there is a connection between the gas centrifuge arrangements that are being negotiated and nuclear weapons. The former are wholly for the civil use of nuclear energy, and stringent precautions will be taken, safeguards and so on applied, to ensure that in the case of the non-nuclear members it will be used only for civil purposes. I do not see any connection in this, and I advise my hon. Friend that to take such an initiative, which is not likely to succeed in present circumstances, would not be helpful.

Diplomatic Service (Conditions of Service and Pensions)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, following the Report of the Duncan Committee, he will now grant terms of retirement and pension to members of the Diplomatic Service comparable to those of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Mulley: Pensions for members of the Diplomatic Service are governed by the Superannuation Act, 1965.
My right hon. Friend has received the report of the Duncan Review Committee which is now under study. Any relevant recommendations about conditions of service in the Diplomatic Service will of course be examined carefully.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that my proposal would improve cross-fertilisation with those concerned in the export industry, and might be helpful both to the Diplomatic Service and to our export industry?

Mr. Mulley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's Question was concerned with terms of retirement, but certainly any suggestions made by the Duncan Committee


about improvements in our export services will be most carefully considered.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not the position that because of the post-war recruiting policy, for understandable reasons, the Diplomatic Service is top-heavy in the senior posts and promotion is a problem, and that something will have to be done?

Mr. Mulley: It is the structural difficulties of the Service which have led to the difficult decision to ask 30 senior officers to retire earlier than they would otherwise have done.

Bari (Detained British Subjects)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the British subjects, the crew of m.v. "Conqueror", awaiting trial in Bari since January 1968.

Mr. Foley: The local Italian judicial authorities have now informed our Consul at Bari that the trial of these British subjects will begin in Trani on 10th July.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the hon. Gentleman express to the officials concerned in the Foreign Office and in Rome and Bari my thanks on behalf of my constituents and, I believe, of yours, Mr. Speaker, at having achieved this result after an unwarrantable delay of a year and a half?

Mr. Foley: Yes, Sir.

Nigeria

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he has taken to help the Federal Government of Nigeria to end the civil strife in the former Eastern Region; and what plans he has for further aid to the distressed war areas.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of the changed situation in Biafra, he will now make a fresh initiative to end the war.

Mr. Foley: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) on 16th June.

—[Vol. 785, c. 2.] I described our current plans for relief aid in the debate on 13th March.—[Vol. 779, c. 1579–81.]

Mr. Fisher: Considering the large number of unnecessarily fatal casualties to Nigerian forces in the field, has any request yet come from the Nigerian Government for the supply of field hospitals or any medical aid from this country?

Mr. Foley: No request has come.

Mr. Allaun: Will Her Majesty's Government use their influence in Lagos to prevent a repetition of the shooting-down of a Red Cross plane in daylight and ask Lagos to accept the offer by Biafra to open Uli airport to daylight flights for food and relief purposes?

Mr. Foley: On the first part, we regret, of course, as anyone would, the tragic events in the shooting-down of this Red Cross plane. I understand that the Federal Government themselves have said that it was a disaster, that this was a dreadful mistake. I want to make it absolutely clear about relief routes that this matter has been the plaything of both sides in the argument over many months and it is very hard to differentiate between a propaganda initiative and a genuine desire. So far as I know, the present position is that the so-called Biafran authorities have offered day and night flights, coupled with the construction of another airfield, and have also accepted in principle the use of a river scheme for getting supplies out. The Federal authorities have started daylight flights and have now given their support to the river route. This last one is under way, we hope, at this very moment, and this is probably the way out of the present dilemma.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: How will all this end? Since the "quick kill" is becoming slower and slower, how do the Government think that the war will be brought to an end? Will they explain what is in their mind?

Mr. Foley: The Government have never subscribed to the theory of a quick kill. The war will come to an end when both sides agree to sit down to discuss their differences and come up with a formula acceptable to both sides. The Federal Government have insisted on one Nigeria and adequate safeguards for the safety of the Ibos. At this moment, the


Biafran side is still insisting on a separate entity.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that Colonel Ojukwu recently offered again discussions without any conditions? Since that is so, will the Government now try at last the only way of bringing this war to an end—namely, an organised attempt through the United Nations to get the machinery of all the Governments to stop both Government and private marketeering supplies of arms to both sides?

Mr. Foley: I accept and fully understand my right hon. Friend's humanitarian motives. I would point out, however, that in the last round of discussions of the O.A.U. at Monrovia the Nigerian side accepted discussions without preconditions. The so-called Biafran side wanted a cease-fire first and then discussions—in other words, the cease-fire was a pre-condition, and it was on these grounds that the talks broke down.
As for the United Nations, I should point out that U Thant, taking note of the initiatives of the O.A.U. and regarding this as an internal problem, recently said categorically that if any member State were to propose that this item—Nigeria—be inscribed on the agenda of the Security Council or the General Assembly, it would not receive the assent of the members.

U.S.S.R. (Mr. Scharegin)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest representations he has made on behalf of Mrs. Scharegin, a United Kingdom citizen, to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding the detention of her husband Mr. Nikolai Scharegin.

Mr. Foley: Since October, 1968, Her Majesty's Consul in Moscow has made repeated inquiries on behalf of Mrs. Scharegin. The Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs have invariably replied that they are still conducting their investigations and that no decision regarding Mr. Scharegin has yet been taken. On 13th June, the Consul was informed that investigations would be completed "in the near future".

Mr. Barnes: In view of the fact that Mr. Scharegin has lived in Britain for

20 years and was representing a British firm when he was detained last September, could my hon. Friend consider including his case in any discussions which he may be having with the Russians about the possible return of Mr. Gerald Brooke?

Mr. Foley: There is a separate Question on the Order Paper about Mr. Brooke. Mr. Scharegin is a Soviet national, although he has lived here since the end of the war. He went to Moscow on a Home Office travel document which was clearly marked that it was not valid for the Soviet Union. He went there at his own risk.

Commonwealth Relations

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister in his Department is responsible for promoting good relations with other Commonwealth countries.

Mr. M. Stewart: Since the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, all Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are responsible for promoting good relations with other Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Farr: I am delighted to have that reply. Are the Ministers merely taking a passive rôle, or are they seeking to take some initiative to promote and extend the very important good relations which we have with other Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Stewart: We regard it as a positive duty on all of us to promote good relations with Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Shinwell: If there is any difficulty in selecting a Minister for this purpose, could we not release Lord Chalfont from his European duties and ask him to undertake this task, in which he might be a little more successful than he has been in the past?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that my right hon. Friend has listened to my answer. I said that there is no difficulty in securing a Minister for this purpose. My right hon. Friend's suggestion is, therefore, on those and other grounds unnecessary and undesirable.

Europe Day and Commonwealth Day

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs how much public money was expended in celebrating Europe Day recently; and how much was expended on celebrating Commonwealth Day on 24th May.

Mr. Mulley: The cost to public funds of support for Europe Day was £1,660 15s. The estimated cost of our support for Commonwealth Day, which, in fact, was on 14th June, is £2,500.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful for that information. Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that many hon. Members on both sides consider that our existing Commonwealth links are of far more value to us and to the country than any future nebulous links with Europe?

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to express a view in response to a question of that sort. In supporting both these days, Her Majesty's Government are only trying to help them to be celebrated appropriately, because we are in Europe and, of course, also interested in the Commonwealth.

Sir G. de Freitas: Welcome as this expenditure on the celebration of Europe Day was, is my right hon. Friend aware that many people thought, considering that it was the 20th anniversary, that it was not nearly enough?

Mr. Mulley: I ought to say that this was the celebration for Europe Day. The cost of the Council of Europe celebrations for the 20th anniversary of the Council of Europe was an additional cost, of approximately £4,800.

Suez Canal (British Ships)

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in his negotiations with the authorities in Egypt for the release of the British ships at present detained in the Suez Canal; and when he expects the Canal will be open to international shipping.

Mr. M. Stewart: As regards the ships, we continue to press for a survey of the southern exit.
The reopening of the Canal itself is unlikely to be achieved except as part of a general settlement.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Canal will ever again be open to shipping? Might it not be better in the long run to abandon the four British ships in this dead canal?

Mr. Stewart: We ought to continue our attempts to get these ships out. It will be apparent to everyone that if a settlement in the Middle East dispute is not reached, or is long delayed, and the Canal remains blocked, its value, inevitably, in world commerce, will diminish. This will be an injury to a good many countries.

Mr. Colin Jackson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any of the ships in the Bitter Lakes have been endangered by cross-shelling?

Mr. Stewart: I do not believe that there has been any serious danger, either to the ships or, I am glad to say, to the people on them.

Mr. Wood: Am I right in thinking that both Egypt and Israel have agreed in principle to the survey mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but that this is prevented only by military activities across the Canal?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, that is so.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are now being made to improve communications between the mainland and the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mulley: The desirability of improving communications between the Falkland Islands and the mainland has been an important consideration in the discussions we have had with the Argentine authorities.
Beyond that I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Member on 5th May.—[Vol. 783, c. 11–12.]

Mr. Smith: Is it not a fact that these islands badly need an external air service? Is it not also true that the Argentinians are only interested in talking about questions of sovereignty? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the islands are


becoming increasingly anxious about these long-drawn-out discussions?

Mr. Mulley: I am very willing to admit that these are difficult negotiations. Because of the importance of improved communications, for the reason given by the hon. Member, we think it right to persist with them. For example, one matter that we have taken up very recently, again, has been the question of delays in the postal services.

Mr. Braine: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that sovereignty is still on the agenda of the talks with the Argentine and, if so, how much longer must this unfruitful discussion of the undiscussable go on?

Mr. Mulley: As has been made clear on many occasions, there has been no change in the Government's policy, which is that the question of seccesion of sovereignty to the Argentine can only arise if two conditions are satisfied—first, there must be a permanently satisfactory relationship between the islands and the Argentine and, secondly, the islanders must regard it as satisfactory, and it must accord with their wishes. That is the situation and that is how it stands.

Rhodesia

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation in Rhodesia.

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the position regarding Rhodesia in the light of the result of the referendum conducted among some Rhodesians.

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's future policy in relation to Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the situation in Rhodesia.

Mr. M. Stewart: As the House knows a referendum was held in Rhodesia on 20th June. The whole House will join with me in deploring the result. The

constitutional proposals for which this minority electorate has voted could never form the basis of an honourable settlement with this country.
It will remain our policy to work for such a settlement when there are people in power in Rhodesia who share our principles. But as things now stand the acceptance of the Rhodesia Front proposals by the minority electorate has pushed the "Fearless" proposals off the table.
The choice which Rhodesian Europeans have made is not the way to safeguard the stability and prosperity of their country. When they realise this they will find us ready to meet them. Meanwhile sanctions and the international isolation of Rhodesia must continue.
There are important aspects of this matter about which I am in consultation with the Governor of Southern Rhodesia and, with the House's permission, I will make a statement tomorrow.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Apart from harming British trade and influence and African livelihood, what can sanctions now achieve? Is not the time coming to recognise the fact of Rhodesian independence? Did not an earlier Administration, in the end, have to recognise the American U.D.I., slavery and all?

Mr. Stewart: The American Declaration of Independence was a declaration for liberty. The Rhodesian declaration of independence is a declaration against that.

Mr. Whitaker: Can my right hon. Friend say something about the position of the two Missions in the respective countries, and, since it is now the only alternative to prolonged periods of bloodshed, would he say what new initiatives Britain is to take in the United Nations for policing and making sanctions more effective?

Mr. Stewart: We are doing our best to make sanctions effective. I do not believe that further resolutions at the United Nations are required. A stricter observance of United Nations policy is required by some countries. We are doing our best to secure this. As to the other part of my hon. Friend's question, I would ask him to await my statement tomorrow.

Mr. Sandys: While deploring the way in which things have developed in


Rhodesia—and the fault is not all on one side—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government still hope that sanctions will bring about a change of régime in Rhodesia?

Mr. Stewart: It is necessary to pursue the policy of sanctions. When the right hon. Gentleman uses this rather dodging phrase
the fault is not all on one side
he must make up his mind on the vital question: does he believe that it is right to establish in Africa a régime based on the permanent principle of racial supremacy?

Mr. Sandys: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bottomley.

Mr. Bottomley: Would my right hon. Friend agree that Parliament as a whole has a continuing responsibility to the Governor, whose services to Rhodesia and the Commonwealth we all so admire, and to those Rhodesians who voted for British standards of liberty and justice? Has my right hon. Friend considered the recent broadcast by Rear-Admiral Sir Anthony Buzzard, ex-chief of the Naval Intelligence Staff, who says that we should continue to apply sanctions vigorously and that force ought not ultimately to be ruled out as a means of ending this rebellion?

Mr. Stewart: I was aware of that broadcast. For the reasons I have given, I agree that it is right to continue sanctions. I must join with my right hon. Friend, as, I think, the whole House will, in expressing appreciation of the stand taken by the Governor throughout this long period. As for the rest, I must again ask the House to await my statement.

Viscount Lambton: I regret the result of the referendum, but would not the Foreign Secretary agree that in the past sanctions have borne most hard on the native population, and are likely to do so again in the future?

Mr. Stewart: The opportunities for the native population in Rhodesia of expressing their opinions are, unfortunately, limited, but we have no reason whatever to believe that they, of all people, would wish the policy of sanctions to be changed.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the inadequate Press reports about the facts, can my right hon. Friend give prominence to one specific fact, which is that out of 90,000 electors who voted for Mr. Smith's constitution, only 6,000 coloured people were allowed to vote, although there are nearly 4 million Africans in Rhodesia?

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, because, although that fact is very well known to all of us here and, indeed, to many other people, it is a fact that cannot be too often stated that the very nature of the electorate makes this referendum contemptible.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek an early opportunity of visiting Rhodesia.

Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: When was the right hon. Gentleman last there? If the right hon. Gentleman had known Rhodesia better, would he not have understood that to intervene in the referendum by the public statement he made could only have added to Mr. Smith's majority?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I did not make that statement without careful consideration and consultation. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Miss Lestor: Does not my right hon. Friend find it curious that those people who are so critical and hostile to immigrants in this country are so "pro" and sympathetic to white immigrants in Rhodesia? Will my right hon. Friend take my assurance that on this side he has our complete support for his efforts to isolate the Smith régime; and that we hope that he will also consider a communications sanction on Rhodesia, and any other sanction, in order to break contact completely with that régime?

Mr. Stewart: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think that she will agree that this is not a simple and straightforward issue, and that there are arguments both ways about a communications sanction. As to the first part of her question, it is true, I think, that some people do take a rather inconsistent attitude about the right of coloured people to live here and the


right of white people to live in Rhodesia. I believe that the moral of this is that in many parts of the world civilised men have to recognise the necessity of creating multi-racial societies based on equal rights.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) to insinuate that I am hostile to any section of Her Majesty's subjects in this country, whether immigrant or native?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must accept political criticism.

Anglo-German Youth Exchange Programme

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider increasing the current contribution of £30,000 made by the British Government under the Anglo-German youth exchange programme, with a view to marking the importance of this programme in the current European situation.

Mr. Foley: I should like to see the level of support from our side increased, provided that comparative support for exchanges with other western European countries could also be provided. But the degree to which H.M.G. can assist programmes of this kind is governed by the present financial circumstances.

Mr. Moonman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. He will appreciate that this is a modest scheme which has an enormous pay off in good will. Would he not consider setting up a secretariat which would encourage voluntary and welfare societies to make a contribution, if the Government cannot?

Mr. Foley: We are in touch with many of the voluntary bodies concerned; and this is one of the issues being considered.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a long accepted practice of the House for Ministers not to refer to Her Majesty's Government as H.M.G.?

Mr. Speaker: I have not noticed.

Middle East (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the growing competition between China and Russia in providing equipment and arms to Syria and Egypt, respectively, if he will propose a further international initiative to restrict arms supplies to the Middle East.

Mr. M. Stewart: As I made clear to the House on 17th June, we would certainly like to see an all-round stoppage, or at least a limitation on arms supplies to the Middle East.
But unless there is a clear indication of general support for such a move, we would not think it practical to take a unilateral initiative at this stage. This is something which would be more likely to arise from a general agreement about the Middle East on which we must concentrate our endeavours.—[Vol. 784; c. 306–14.]

Mr. Moonman: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in view of our own ambiguous policy towards Israel on shipment of tanks, we have a special responsibility to ensure that we search out ways to prevent the Russians continuing to put a great amount of equipment into the area—and, indeed, the Chinese in the future?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend may remember that immediately after the war in 1967 we endeavoured to set an example of unilateral abstention from supplying, but I must make it clear that if the result were to put one country in the Middle East at serious disadvantage, this would be a very dangerous policy.

Mr. Gerald Brooke

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the imprisonment by the Soviet authorities of Mr. Brooke.

Mr. M. Stewart: The case of Mr. Brooke was discussed further with the Soviet Ambassador on 30th May.

Mr. Goodhart: While we all hope that Mr. Brooke will soon be released, does the Foreign Secretary recognise that exchanging Mr. Brooke for professional


Soviet spies would put innocent British travellers behind the Iron Curtain at risk in the future? Is there no external pressure we are prepared to apply to the Soviet Union in an attempt to protect Mr. Brooke?

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the consideration which the hon. Gentleman advances, and all the other considerations one must bear in mind. At present negotiations are proceeding with the Soviet authorities to avert a further trial of Mr. Brooke. No agreement has yet been reached, and it would not be helpful to Mr. Brooke to say anything now.

Mr. Hastings: While echoing the hope that the torture of Gerald Brooke will soon be ended, may I ask whether it is recognised that an exchange for the Krogers would be a demonstration of the omnipotence of the K.G.B. and a boost for the morale and thus the audacity of every Soviet agent working in this country and, indeed, in the Western world? Furthermore, is it recognised that if this exchange takes place, in the event of the future apprehension in this country of Soviet agents, no British tourist, businessman or traveller to the Soviet Union will be safe from provocation, compromise and false arrest as a hostage?

Mr. Stewart: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not think that I can add to my previous reply.

Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that blackmail is always obnoxious whether practised by Governments or by individuals? Is he also aware that we on this side have complete confidence that he will pursue this matter to the best advantage of Mr. Brooke and the country?

France (Youth Leadership Exchanges)

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of recent developments in France, his Department will consider giving practical assistance and financial support to those voluntary agencies concerned with promoting youth leadership exchanges between Great Britain and France.

Mr. Foley: We are considering in what further ways we might assist the voluntary organisation arranging exchanges of this

kind. But we are limited by our present financial circumstances.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is my hon. Friend aware that millions are spent in promoting exchanges of young people between France and Germany? Could not we spend even a quarter of that sum in promoting such exchanges between Britain and France?

Mr. Foley: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a considerable amount is already being done by Governments without any financial stimulus or support. There are, in addition, well over 2,000 French assistants in schools in this country, and from this country nearly half that number have gone to France. We should like to see more.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Is my hon. Friend convinced that the British Council is the best agent for these exchanges? Would he consider giving further assistance to the British Youth Council so that it could undertake the work?

Mr. Foley: The British Council is concerned with exchanges of young scientists and business executives. The Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges and the British Youth Council join to deal with the rest of the youth field.

European Security

Mr. Boston: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the present position concerning proposals for discussions between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact countries on commitments in Europe.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals were made at the recent Western European Union Ministerial meeting at The Hague for a European Security Conference; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mulley: As the House knows, studies are proceeding in N.A.T.O. The details of consultations in the Western European Union are confidential. But I can say that there was agreement at The Hague that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was the appropriate forum for concerting allied views. The essential


element will of course be Soviet readiness for genuine progress.

Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us felt that the action of the Canadian Government in announcing its unilateral decision to withdraw forces from Europe was unfortunate, to say the least? Can my right hon. Friend say what effect this is likely to have on the prospect of further talks about forces reductions? Will he continue his efforts to obtain discussions and agreement on this problem of the Canadian attitude?

Mr. Mulley: The work in N.A.T.O. for mutual force reductions is beginning and the offer made in the communiqué of June, 1968, to have these negotiations with the Warsaw Pact Powers, stands. I hope the consideration by the Canadian Government will not have the effect which my hon. Friend fears.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite events in Czechoslovakia, it is vitally important to continue to try to get an agreement with the Warsaw Pact countries for mutual reductions in forces and weapons? Will he say whether he has considered the proposals for a permanent security commission, a proposal put forward by Mr. Brzezinski of the United States?

Mr. Mulley: To the first part of the question the answer is certainly, "Yes". We attach the greatest importance to trying to achieve mutual force reductions. On the second part, I should like to study more closely my hon. Friend's suggestion and I shall write to him about it.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (STANDBY FACILITIES)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): On 14th May I told the House that there had been discussions with the I.M.F. staff about further standby facilities for the United Kingdom, and that a full statement would be made when the arrangements were complete.
These arrangements are now complete. On Friday last the fund board approved a standby facility for the United Kingdom of 1,000 million dollars over the next year. Five hundred million dollars are available for drawing immediately; the rest will become available in three quarterly

tranches, after consultation with the fund in each case.
The amount and phasing of this facility is related to the schedule of repayments in respect of our drawing in May, 1965. This was 1,400 million dollars, of which 600 million dollars have so far been repaid and a further 800 million dollars remain to be repaid in instalments between now and May, 1970. The new arrangement is a way of refinancing part of our debts. Our total indebtedness to the fund, so far from being increased, will be approximately 400 million dollars less in May, 1970, than it was a year ago, on the assumption that we draw the full amounts.
In accordance with normal practice, I addressed a Letter of Intent to the managing director on 22nd May. Copies have been made available to hon. Members in the Vote Office this afternoon and the Letter will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The letter follows the main lines of the financial policy announced in the Budget. But for the present purpose I have expressed two features of that policy in quantitative terms. First, I am stating an objective of a £300 million balance of payments surplus for the current financial year. This is an interim objective, a measure of our intended progress towards the continuing surplus which we need.
Second, I emphasised in the Budget the need for restraint in the expansion of credit to the domestic economy. Domestic credit expansion—that is, broadly speaking, the net addition to the borrowing of the public and private sectors taken together—is intended to be limited to not more than £400 million in 1969–70.
In addition to the annual figure, I have made estimates, of which I have informed the I.M.F., of an appropriate quarterly path for domestic credit expansion and for the central Government borrowing requirement within it. I do not propose to publish these quarterly figures. Were I to do so, I would be encouraging speculation in a way that would make more difficult the management of the gilt-edged market.
I regard the conclusion of these discussions with the Fund as satisfactory. The House will have the opportunity to discuss the matter on Wednesday, when I hope to enlarge on this statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The House will be grateful to the Chancellor for making available in advance of the debate both the statement today and, more particularly, the Letter of Intent. As he says, the debate will take place within a very short time.
Is the Chancellor aware that both his statement and, more particularly, the Letter of Intent make quite clear his capitulation to the monetary policy doctrines of the I.M.F.? As this is a matter of such grave importance, it is probably better to debate it and, therefore, I do not wish to pursue it further by questions this afternoon.

Mr. Jenkins: I note what the right hon. Gentleman said. I will not pursue him further than he wished to pursue me, except to say that it is rather odd to describe as capitulation a policy which I clearly announced in my Budget speech two-and-a-half months ago and which I intend to pursue.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are debating this statement on Wednesday.

Mr. Barnett: Does paragraph 11 of the Letter of Intent mean that the import deposits scheme is to continue beyond the end of this year? How does my right hon. Friend expect to get an overall surplus on total balance of payments, including capital account, without adequate control over capital outflow? Does it mean that he intends to maintain a stricter control over capital outflow in future?

Mr. Jenkins: The import deposits scheme remains exactly as stated by the Government and is not affected one way or the other by paragraph 11 of the Letter of Intent.
I remind my hon. Friend that our capital account has been in balance for the past year on private account and that even allowing for some official outflow the deficit was only £7 million.

Mr. Tapsell: Does the Chancellor still stand by his declaration of a year ago that it was essential for the country to achieve an overall balance of payments surplus of £500 million a year?

Mr. Jenkins: What I said a year ago was that it was desirable to move as quickly as we could towards a balance of payments surplus of that order. I still believe that that is desirable.

Mr. Cant: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the attitudes of some hon. Members on either side of the House to the I.M.F. is a strange mixture of pessimism and paranoia? While one would welcome the acceptance by the Chancellor of the monetary policy as outlined on previous occasions, may I ask whether he will not in any circumstances be seduced by the new argument of the Chicago school in relation to float-exchange rates or even gliding parities?

Mr. Jenkins: I have no intention of either floating or gliding.

Mr. Sandys: Will the Chancellor say who governs Britain—the international bankers or the T.U.C.?

Mr. Jenkins: Her Majesty's Government govern Britain, as they did when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of a Cabinet which wrote four Letters of Intent to the International Monetary Fund without publishing a single one of them.

Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that few will be deceived by the generally soporific and utterly misleading terms set out in the text of the letter? Is he further aware that his claim that the text of the letter is in line with his Budget strategy more than amply confirms the worst suspicions of those of us who want to see more rapid expansion, a fall in the level of unemployment, and an increase in the rate of investment?

Mr. Jenkins: I hope that nobody, least of all my hon. Friend, will be deceived by anything. I hope that, if he disagrees with my Budget strategy—I regret it if it is so—he will blame me for that and not the I.M.F.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is the Chancellor aware of the formidable difficulty there is in believing his forecast of £300 million in the light of previous experience? What is to happen if this forecast is not met?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that the prospects of achieving this are good. Nobody can


predict with certainty that this will happen, but I am determined to pursue the policies necessary to achieve it.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great risk that is incurred in committing ourselves to a precise figure of money supply is very likely to cause? Will the tranches available from the I.M.F. be dependent on the respective performances of this indicator and other indicators?

Mr. Jenkins: There is no direct trigger relationship, as it is sometimes called. As I said, we shall consult the I.M.F., but in those consultations not only this factor but all the factors in the situation, including the general state of our economy and of our balance of payments, will be taken fully into account.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In view of the Chancellor's explicit opinion in his Budget Statement that there is no magic about a particular figure for a surplus, why is he now committing the Government to a specific figure at a specific date?

Mr. Jenkins: There is no magic about it, and I am not committing the Government to a specific figure. I would like to get more than £300 million, and think that we might get it.

Mr. John Mendelson: Whilst my right hon. Friend is obviously confining his remarks to a minimum because of the debate, can he comment today, on this first occasion, on the fears that have been expressed, not by people who want to ask trick questions, but by serious economists—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—on both sides; there was the question by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) about the T.U.C.—that the restriction on credit may have a serious effect upon our industrial production at a time when there are other independent tendencies moving in the direction of recession?

Mr. Jenkins: Of course, I take into account the fears that have been expressed. As I have said previously, and gladly repeat today, the object of my policy is to achieve the most rapid improvement in the balance of payments compatible with a good rate of growth. Certain dangers have to be balanced, though I am bound to express the view that I think that some

of the dangers of recession have been exaggerated in recent days. After all, the unemployment figures published last week were the lowest for 23 months and the figures for unfilled vacancies were the highest for two-and-a-half years.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Asking as a serious if not, I hope, particularly solemn economist, and reverting to the question asked by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), will the Chancellor confirm that control of capital payments overseas to the Western European sector would be incompatible with the Treaty of Rome, unless he envisages a situation where Britain is going perpetually to invoke the exemption clauses in respect of balance of payments difficulties?

Mr. Jenkins: I used to argue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this subject, but it is a little time since I have actually studied the Treaty of Rome. I am prepared to look at this matter immediately it becomes actual, but there is no question at the moment of there being freer capital movement than we have at present with various parts of the world.

Mr. Albu: Did my right hon. Friend say that he intended to attempt to reach a balance of payments surplus of £300 million this year or at the rate of £300 million by the end of the year? Is it his intention to use the drawings from the fund only for the rescheduling of payments from previous borrowings?

Mr. Jenkins: I indicated that I hope that the balance of payments surplus in our financial year 1969–70 would be £300 million—a total and not a rate.
On the second part of the question, it is, broadly speaking, the case that we intend to do this, but because of the exact conjuncture in time of drawings and instalments due there is no exact balance between the two. After all, we have at present paid off £600 million and we shall withdraw rather more, but the net effect of the whole exercise is that when we come to the end of the repayment period in May we shall owe the I.M.F. less than we did a year ago.

Sir G. Nabarro: How does the Chancellor relate his repeated references to adhering to his Budget Statement with


the fact that he has apparently overturned that part of his statement which said that he intended to implement without delay, this Session, the principal provisions of the White Paper "In Place of Strife"?

Mr. Jenkins: Because it has proved possible to get an arrangement with the T.U.C. which I believe will work. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State made it quite clear in the Budget debate that, if objectives could be secured that way, that would be satisfactory. I believe that it is satisfactory. If hon. Members are interested—I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to be—in improving the climate of industrial relations during the next year, they should take some satisfaction in the settlement rather than being merely interested in a narrow piece of party politics.

Mr. Michael Foot: What is the Chancellor's forecast for the level of unemployment over the next 12 to 18 months? Will he take it that, despite the latest welcome reduction, many of us still regard that figure as being intolerably high? Talking of serious economists, will he give us an undertaking that the whole Government repudiate the views of Professor Paish?

Mr. Jenkins: On the first part, I am not prepared to publish an exact forecast, as it has not been done previously. I know my hon. Friend's views on this matter. I know, also, that he and many others expressed great concern at this time last year and thought that the rate would rise substantially during the late summer, autumn and winter. It did not do so. That does not prove anything for the future, but it does prove that desirability of waiting and seeing what happens.
I am reasonably optimistic about the prospect. I believe that the rate of growth I announced in my Budget speech can be attained, provided that our export performance does well and our balance of payments follows my forecast.

Mr. Longden: Irrespective of who signs Letters of Intent, is it not obvious that people who are constantly being asked to afford facilities to chronic borrowers will make their terms harsher? Is not what we should be worrying about the fact that the British Government have to

go cap in hand every six months or so to beg more money to enable us to spend more than we are able to earn?

Mr. Jenkins: I hope that in that event the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will give more support to measures to put the balance of payments right than they have hitherto done.

Mr. Marquand: Will my right hon. Friend give the House some idea of what the implications for the £300 million surplus target he mentions in the letter are of the recent under-count in exports which we have heard about?

Mr. Jenkins: To some extent these figures make the target easier to achieve, though as the error, although it affects the balance of payments, does not affect our debt position or our reserve position, and as the standby is for dealing with our debt position and our reserve position, it makes it the more desirable if we can to get beyond that target at the earliest possible date.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is to debate this issue on Wednesday. I must protect the business of the House.

Following is the Letter of Intent:

Dear Mr. Schweitzer,

The Government of the United Kingdom hereby requests of the International Monetary Fund a stand-by arrangement under which for a period of one year the United Kingdom will have the right to purchase from the Fund currencies of other members in exchange for sterling in an amount equivalent in total to $1,000 million. The Government intends to make an immediate drawing of the equivalent of $500 million. Before making a request for a further purchase under the stand-by arrangement, the Government will consult with the Fund and reach understanding regarding the circumstances in which such purchases may be made. Before making purchases under the requested stand-by arrangement, the Government will consult with the Managing Director on the particular currencies to be purchased from the Fund.

2. The purpose of this stand-by is to support the Government's economic objectives and policies. It will facilitate the repayments of external debt now falling due, including the scheduled repurchases of sterling from the Fund in respect of the 1965 drawing by the United Kingdom, and will assist in maintaining stability in the international monetary system.

3. In accordance with the normal practice of the Fund in regard to applications for stand-by facilities, I summarise in this letter


the Government's main economic objectives and policies, as set forth in my Budget speech on 15th April, 1969 and other recent statements of policy.

4. As I said in my Budget speech, it is the Government's policy to do everything necessary to put the United Kingdom balance of payments on a secure and healthy basis, as an essential means to sustained growth and prosperity. The Budget was designed to continue and strengthen the balance of payments strategy which the Government has been pursuing. The objective is to obtain a substantial and continuing balance of payments surplus.

5. Strong action has been taken, and the balance of payments has already improved considerably. Progress has not been as large or rapid as the Government wished but the Government intends it to continue and strengthen. The Government is taking and will continue to take the action necessary to this end. The growth of public expenditure and private consumption is being limited so that there is room for the desired substantial and continuing balance of payments surplus to develop. The intention is to make sure that the turn-round in the structure of the United Kingdom economy gains full momentum. Substantial further progress is intended and expected during the next year. In the financial year ending in March, 1970 the objective is to obtain a surplus of at least £300 million on the current and long-term capital account of the balance of payments.

6. Public expenditure for both 1968–69 and 1969–70 is running within the totals announced by the Government in January, 1968 (Cmnd. 3515). In 1968–69 aggregate expenditure is estimated to have increased in real terms over the previous year by 4·1 per cent. This was within the announced limit of 4·75 per cent. For 1969–70 public expenditure will again be held within the totals announced in January, 1968 which allowed for an increase of 1 per cent. in real terms over the planned level for 1968–69; the increase over the actual outturn for 1968–69 will be larger.

7. The full year yield of the increases in direct and indirect taxation made in the 1968 Budget, in November, 1968 and in the 1969 Budget, is in total some £1,500 million. The Central Government borrowed £1,331 million net in 1967–68. In 1968–69 the Central Government borrowing requirement (excluding receipts from import deposits) was about £70 million. In 1969–70 the Central Government's accounts (again excluding import deposits) are intended to be in surplus by at least £850 million, and the current estimate is of a surplus approaching £1,000 million, an improvement of more than £1,000 million over the previous financial year.

8. As was also stated in the Budget speech, the Government attaches the greatest importance to monetary policy, which provides an essential support to fiscal policy. The rise in money supply in 1968 of £986 million was broadly in line with the growth of G.N.P.; but the increase in credit in the economy was too high, and the Government intends not to permit credit to be supplied to the economy on anything like this scale in 1969–70.

9. The Government will therefore watch closely the development of domestic credit expansion during the year. The Government's objectives and policies imply a domestic credit expansion for the private and public sectors in the year ending 31st March, 1970 of not more than £400 million, compared with some £1,225 million in 1968–69. It is the Government's policy to ensure that the course quarter by quarter of domestic credit expansion as a whole, and of the Central Government borrowing requirement within it, is consistent with the intended result for the year as a whole, and to take action as appropriate to this end.

10. The statutory powers relating to prices and incomes policy introduced in the exceptional circumstances following devaluation continue in effect until the end of 1969. Thereafter the powers of Part II of the 1966 Prices and Incomes Act will be activated, and will be used to defer, in appropriate cases, the implementation of a pay settlement or price increases for three to four months in the context of a reference to the Prices and Incomes Board. Further guidance to negotiators will be issued in a new White Paper later in the year.

11. The Government is confident that its present policies will strengthen sterling as an integral part of the international monetary system. Freedom of international trade and current payments continues to be an aim of policy to which the Government attaches great importance. It is the Government's policy to maintain the present degree of trade liberalisation, and to abolish as soon as the balance of payments allows the restrictions which it currently maintains on travel expenditure and small cash gifts, and also the import deposit scheme.

12. The Government believes that the policies set forth in this letter are adequate to achieve the objectives of its programme, but will take any further measures that may become appropriate for this purpose.

13. The Government will consult with the Fund from time to time, in accordance with the regular policies of the Fund on such consultation, about the course of the United Kingdom economy and any further measures affecting the balance of payments that may be appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

ROY JENKINS.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES

Estimates set out hereunder referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

Class III, Vote 2, Scottish Home and Health Department.
Class III, Vote 6, Police, Scotland.
Class III, Vote 8, Prisons, Scotland.
Class IV, Vote 5, Roads and Transport Services, Scotland.
Class V, Vote 2, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.
Class V, Vote 4, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies).
Class V, Vote 6, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees).
Class VI, Vote 2, Scottish Development Department.
Class VI, Vote 8, Rate Support Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland.
Class VI, Vote 14, National Health Service, &amp;c., Scotland.
Class VI, Vote 22, Social Work, Scotland.
Class VII, Vote 2, Scottish Education Department.
Class VII, Vote 4, Teachers' Superannuation (Scotland).—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

Orders of the Day — DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have not selected new Clause No. 2, "Financial assistance for provision of theatres, &c.". I wonder whether I may ask you, Sir, whether your decision in that matter is subject to reconsideration.

Mr. Speaker: May I answer the hon. Gentleman generally? Mr. Speaker and his advisers devote great pains to the selection of Amendments for the Report stage. Obviously, the non-selection of Amendments is bound to disappoint one hon. Member or another. From time to time, I do hear representations, but, so far as I am aware, my mind is fairly well made up on today's selection.

Sir Keith Joseph: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, there are three—or possibly four—particular omissions from your provisional selection which, I think, many hon. Members would be very grateful to have reconsidered, if you found that possible. Two of them involve completely new points.
First, I take Amendments Nos. 89 and 90. No. 89, in Clause 2, page 3, line 16, at end insert:
(4) The British Travel Association shall, in consultation with the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board, establish machinery to co-ordinate the activities of all four Tourist Boards mentioned in this paragraph on matters affecting Great Britain as a whole.
No. 90, in page 3, line 16, at end insert:
(4) The British Travel Association, the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board shall in the interests of economy and efficiency establish common services in appropriate cases and such common services shall be administered by the British Travel Association.
Those two Amendments address themselves to the question of co-ordination between what are now the four tourist authorities. This point was not raised in Committee, and I believe that many


hon. Members, including, perhaps, the Minister of State himself, will agree that, with four tourist authorities, there is need for the House to address itself to the question of co-ordination.
The next Amendment to which, with respect, I draw your attention is No. 95, in Clause 17, page 16, line 1, leave out subsection (6) and insert:
(6) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by a Resolution of each House.
This Amendment asks the Government to amend the Bill so as to make the introduction of a registration scheme subject to affirmative instead of negative Resolution. This, also, is a new point. Those are the two new points.
I come now to Amendment No. 24, in Clause 2, page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(3) In discharging their functions under this section the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board shall have regard to the desirability of fostering and, in appropriate cases, co-operating with organisations discharging functions corresponding to those of the Boards in relation to particular areas within the countries for which the Boards are respectively responsible; and, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, each of those Boards shall have power to provide such organisations with financial or other assistance.
(4) In discharging its functions under this section each Tourist Board shall have regard to the desirability of undertaking appropriate consultation with persons and organisations, including those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, who have knowledge of, or are interested in, any matters affecting the discharge of those functions.
With respect, we seek a separate debate on the first four words of this Government Amendment. Those four words appear to be completely innocuous, but, in fact, they succeed in eliminating the reference in the Bill as amended to Scotland and Wales.
Finally, I come to the group of Amendments Nos. 60, 62 and 66:
No. 60, in Clause 17, page 14, line 33, after 'section', insert—
'will only be made after a request has been made to the relevant Minister by the British Travel Association or the Tourist Board and'.
No. 62, in page 15, line 15, after 'Order', insert—
'which will only be made after a request for such an Order has been made to the relevant

Minister by the British Travel Association or the Tourist Board,'.
No. 66, in page 15, line 31, after 'section', insert—
'which will only be made after a request for such an Order has been made to the relevant Minister by the British Travel Association or the Tourist Board,'.
These Amendments relate to what I may call a near-undertaking given by the Minister of State, in Committee, that the registration and grading procedure would be introduced only after a request to the Government by the tourist authority. This is the weakest of the four points which I make because, although we discussed the matter in Committee, the Minister did not go so far as to give an undertaking, although he went some way towards it.
On the three other points, I ask you, Sir, with respect, but with some feeling of strength, whether it would be possible for you, during our proceedings, to reconsider your selections.

Mr. Speaker: I deal, first, with, so to call it, the most important point, the one on which our minds reach out together, namely, the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman on Amendment No. 24.
I was aware that the Opposition set some store by subsection (3) and were not too happy about its replacement by the new subsections (3) and (4). I had already decided that, when we come to that, I shall be willing to accept a request from the Opposition that we split Amendment No. 24. The first Question I shall put will be that the Amendment to leave out subsection (3) be made. The second Question I shall put will be the Amendment to insert words as they appear on the Paper. That will meet one of the right hon. Gentleman's points.
On the others, I must be quite noncommittal at the moment. I have listened with care to everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Peter Emery: May I raise a further point of order with you, Mr. Speaker? The whole structure of the Bill was altered in Committee, and, with the new English Tourist Board coming in, there were several points which the Committee decided not to discuss because there was very little opportunity, while the Committee was proceeding, to raise those matters. It was agreed between the two sides that we should not go ahead with them then.
May I, Mr. Speaker, refer particularly to new Clause No. 7—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this is not a growing habit. The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee. I remind him that it met on very many days and sat for very many hours, and a great many words were said. We cannot regurgitate the whole of a Committee stage on Report.

Mr. Emery: I realise that, Sir. I attended all but one of the 18 sittings, and no one was more conscious than I of the time we took. However, because of the way matters went, it was agreed by both sides that it would be inappropriate to deal with these matters in Committee and that we should wait till Report to deal with some of them. One such matter is raised by new Clause No. 7, which would provide for appeal against classification or grading, a selective judgment. This was not discussed as such in Committee at all.
We discussed appeal regarding loans and other matters, but appeal on grading was not dealt with. This arises when someone is subjected to a classification or grading of a hotel by a Ministry official, and we should be most grateful if you could reconsider your selection in that respect.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must know that the Chair has read the Amendments and new Clauses and

New Clause 1


NOTIFICATION OF PRICES OF ACCOMMODATION


(1) Her Majesty may, by an Order in Council applying to, or to any class of, hotels and other establishments in Great Britain at which sleeping accommodation is provided by way of trade or business, make provision for requiring the display at the establishments of information with respect to the prices charged there for such accommodation as aforesaid or otherwise for securing that such information is brought to the notice of persons seeking to avail themselves of the accommodation.


(2) Subsection (2)(e), (f) and (g) and subsections (4), (5) and (6) of section 17 of this Act shall apply to an Order under this section as they apply to an Order under that section.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to consider, at the same time, the following Amendments:
Amendment (a) to the new Clause, leave out 'the display at the establishments of' and insert 'that'.

that he understands the issues raised by them. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I give no commitment.

Mr. J. T. Price: May I make a point, Mr. Speaker, with general reference to the points of order already raised? There is a growing feeling in the House that, on Report of many important Bills of great complexity, we are engendering an atmosphere in which there is a regurgitation of the Committee proceedings to such inordinate length that a great deal of time and the patience of the House are wasted.
May I submit, rather in support of the Chair than in criticism, that a great many of us would welcome the greater vigilance of the Chair to prevent the regurgitation of ancient debate—the regurgitation of ancient vomit, as some might call it—keeping the House sitting at inordinate hours late at night on matters which have been adequately discussed in Committee.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman pays me the compliment of quoting an unhappy word which I used, the word "regurgitation"—a little too physiological, perhaps. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I realise that the Opposition always want to discuss more on Report than the Chair wishes them to do, and the Government always want less discussed on Report than the Chair permits. This is the classic duty of Mr. Speaker, as an unhappy Solomon in the midst of two contending forces.

Amendment (b) to the new Clause, leave out 'or otherwise for securing that such information'.

Amendment No.88, in the Title, line 10, after 'business', insert:
'and for securing that the prices charged there for such accommodation are brought to the notice of persons seeking to avail themselves of it'.

Sir Charles Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friends and I wish it, would you permit us to divide the House on Amendments (a) and (b)?

Mr. Speaker: Amendment (a) is the key Amendment of the two, the lead-in Amendment, as it were. If the Opposition, after hearing the debate, ask for a Division, I shall be willing to concede one.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: I think that we can start our proceedings on a harmonious note, since this is a genuine effort on our part to meet, as we understood it, the expressed will of the Committee as a whole. The Clause is designed to enable provision to be made by Order in Council for requiring hotels and other establishments providing tourist accommodation to display or otherwise notify their room charges, and for securing compliance with the Order.
Hon. Members who were present in the Committee will remember that this proposal arose rather obliquely on an Opposition Amendment. The general view then expressed was that it was desirable to make provision of this kind requiring hotels to display their tariffs. It was, for example, the view of the hon. Members for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), Barry (Mr. Gower), Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and Honiton (Mr. Emery). I hope that in framing the new Clause I am meeting their wishes and those of everyone else who joined in the preliminary discussion in Committee.
At this stage it may be helpful if I set out again the background against which we should see both the new Clause and our discussions on the Bill today. I emphasise again the importance of inward tourism to this country, with almost 5 million people coming here in 1968. Up to April this year the number of foreign visitors was 21 per cent. greater than in the same period last year. There was an especially large increase in the number of visitors from France.
During the first quarter, overseas visitors as a whole are estimated to have spent 18 per cent. more in Britain than during the same period last year. These encouraging figures give us grounds for expecting another record for tourist earnings

this year, and an appreciable balance of payments surplus on the tourist account. This is a very satisfactory position, but there is no reason for complacency. We should build on this and ensure that the growth continues, if possible at an accelerating rate.
I am glad that it is not only the tourist industry in general but the hotel side also which is in an improving position. For example, last Friday's Investor's Chroncile referred to buoyant reports from the hotel and catering industry, and I was interested to read the "Lex" column in the Financial Times, last Tuesday and and Wednesday, dealing with company reports from Trust Houses and Grand Metropolitan Hotels. In the first case, there was a reference to the extent to which Trust Houses was benefiting from what was described as the foreigner's whim, meaning the increased numbers of tourists coming to this country. In the second, there was a reference to the boom in United Kingdom tourist figures as one obvious source of strength at home. In the case of both these important hotel groups the performance is good and the prospect is better.
I think that what Lex was saying was that if one wants to buy cheaply some shares which will show a good record later one should get in on the hotel industry, or certainly on these two groups. Therefore, our discussions on the new Clause and the rest of our debate should not be against a background of a sickly hotel industry. I shall not enter into the question whether or not the industry has problems. It will no doubt be argued that it has. All I hope is that the message from the House as a result of this Report stage will not be that British hotels are on their knees and not capable of catering for increasing numbers of foreign tourists and providing them with very satisfactory accommodation.
It is not a depressed sector of our economy—not that there are any depressed sectors of our economy—and we should see the provisions of the Clause against that background. It is not a depressed sector because of the high standards in many of our hotels and the fact that the standards of almost all of them are rising. But it is desirable to have the new Clause to make even the best more attractive to consumers and as a safeguard against the very occasional


black sheep. It is a desirable measure of consumer protection.

Mr. Raymond Gower: As the Minister emphasised the number of visitors from abroad, including, presumably, a number of people from various continental countries, does this mean that the Orders are likely to require publication of information in more than one language?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman may care to wait to hear what I have to say further about that, but it is an interesting suggestion. Although it is not necessary to prescribe that in legislation, it is certainly something to which hotels should give attention. I would hope that hotels catering for foreign visitors will increasingly bear in mind that not all of them speak English, and will not only word their notices accordingly but have staff who speak other languages as well.
Where there may be some differences of opinion—and this is borne out by our preliminary discussions with the trade—is in the form in which the information to which I have referred should be brought to the notice of intending guests. Some favour a notice in the bedrooms of the sort we find in French hotels and those of some other European countries, something that I always find exceedingly convenient and helpful. Others prefer to see a notice at the reception desk, while others feel that hotels should be expected to notify the price in writing to guests at the time of booking.
It is clear that we should have further discussions both with the trade and with tourist and consumer interests before deciding on the best way of publishing tariffs. For this reason, I thought it right to provide in the Bill simply an enabling power.
Accordingly, subsection (1) gives powers for an Order in Council to be made requiring hotels and other establishments providing tourist accommodation to display their room charges. The subsection is worded in such a way as to enable the Order also to specify other means of bringing the price to the notice of intending guests. This will provide a measure of flexibility which will make it possible to select the best system when we have had the opportunity of further discussions with the interests concerned.
If the system is to be effective there must be the means to secure compliance with the Order. Subsection (2) therefore attracts the provisions of paragraph (e), (f) and (g) of Clause 17(2) relating to inspection and penalties.
We also envisage the possibility that it might prove desirable to make different provisions for different categories of accommodation. For example, it might not be considered reasonable to require establishments which let accommodation only on an inclusive weekly basis to provide a nightly tariff. It might prove desirable to bring an Order into force at different times in different parts of the country, and to have power to provide for exemptions. Subsection (2) therefore contains provisions covering these possibilities. It also provides for the annulment of the Order by Resolution of either House of Parliament, and for revocation or variation of an Order by a subsequent Order made under the new Clause.
I am sure that I do not need to emphasise that nothing in the Clause would enable any form of price control to be introduced. I was able to give a quite unreserved answer on this point in Committee. Our intention is simply to ensure that visitors to this country have available the sort of information which they are accustomed to finding when visiting hotels in some other countries, and that our own people will be able to know what they will have to pay for their holiday accommodation or for hotel rooms in which they have to stay when travelling on business.
I make that point because, although we see the Bill against a background of more and more foreign visitors coming to this country, it was frequently said in Committee that we should also provide for accommodation used by many people in this country taking holidays at home or travelling on business or for pleasure.
We have taken some preliminary views in the industry. It is no surprise that some sectors of the industry are not at present enthusiastic about the new Clause. It was not in the Bill as originally drafted: they may reasonably wonder what its full implications may be, and may not have had time to consult all their constituent parts. The B.T.A. sees the case for this enabling power, although—and I think that this is in line with the B.T.A. views on Part III


of the Bill—it favours the publication of tariffs as a result of a voluntary agreement. The Consumer Council, on the other hand, has said that the new Clause has its full support.
This is a useful new Clause. It represents an improvement to the Bill and it is a direct result of our discussions in Committee. I hope that it will commend itself speedily to the House.

Sir C. Taylor: It is right for me first to disclose the fact that, for many years, I have had interests in the hotel industry, as hon. Members may know—but perhaps, in consideration of the Bill, that may be something of an advantage.
I thank the Minister for the new Clause. It shows the measure of co-operation which he gave us during Committee that he was prepared to consider the representations made by the Opposition about these matters, particularly, of course, by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who originally put forward this suggestion. But I regret to say that this was discussed at one of the two meetings of the Committee at which I was not present. I had to be in Dublin for a meeting of the Council of the International Hotels Association, where I had to explain various things which had been happening to delegates who had come from all over the world. Otherwise, I would have done my best to persuade my hon. Friend that it is not desirable to have notices in hotel rooms giving the prices.
In Committee, the Minister said that the formula used—which was to agree a reasonable sum—was in Section 3 of the Hotel Proprietors (Liabilities and Rights) Act, 1956, and was well understood. But I do not believe that anyone wants to see, in a nicely furnished hotel room, a notice on the wall showing what the price of the room it. It reminds me of my younger days, when I used to go to the seaside with my parents and the walls were filled with notices like, "No towels to be taken on to the beach". I remember one remarkable notice I saw in a Jamaica hotel before the war, "Visitors are requested not to entertain members of the opposite sex in their rooms as public rooms are provided for this purpose."
One could put all sorts of notices on the walls of hotel bedrooms which would completely destroy the decor of the room, and I suggest that in any case, a notice in the room itself giving the price of the room is actually much too late for the guest. What is really needed is rather like what happens in the United States and other countries. There, when the visitor applies for a room, he is given a card which, in effect, says "Welcome to our hotel. The price of your accommodation is so-and-so." That is surely all that is really necessary. When the visitor enters the hotel and asks whether a room is available, he is told immediately how much the accommodation will cost. He can inspect the room and if he does not like it at that price he need not take it. I feel that that is all that is necessary.
It has been said that displaying price notices on hotel bedroom doors is compulsory in France, but I understand that the de luxe hotels are exempt from that provision. I do not see why anyone should be exempted from a general law and I cannot believe that it is really necessary to have a notice in the room itself which, as I have said, is too late for the customer anyway. I would rather see the visitor being notified of the price of the room when he goes to the lobby to book it.

Dr. Hugh Gray: I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's assertion that the notice, if it is on the bedroom door, is too late. If one is staying in France or Italy, if one is out of season one may be offered the room for much less than the sum displayed—in which case it is a source of pleasure—and if one is being overcharged at the end one can desist and ask for a reduction. I fail to see any objection to prices being displayed in the rooms. There are distinct advantages.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a speech disguised as an intervention.

Sir C. Taylor: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray). It is too late to have a price notice in the room. Far better if one sees the price in the foyer, so that one can either accept or reject it there and then.
I would like to tell the House the story of a great friend of mine who runs a hotel in Austria. She advertises the hotel as being the most expensive in Europe.


When anyone goes there and asks for a room she says, "Do you know how much you have to pay for this room? I want you to know. It is so much and it sounds and is a lot of money." When she sees a rather droopy look in the customer's eyes, she says, "I can probably get you much better accommodation at a much cheaper price elsewhere, but this is the most expensive hotel in Europe." Where-upon the customer says, "No. I will stay here with you. I have heard about this hotel and I want to pay the additional price."
Hotel prices vary from time to time. Some hotels charge different prices at different seasons and, of course, there are such things to be taken into account as changes in selective employment tax, in the wage structure, and so forth, all of which affect the tariff of a hotel. Indeed, I know that many hotel companies, which had already circulated tariffs to the public through a booklet, were distressed to find that the recent increase in selective employment tax put all their prices out of the appropriate range.
I have here a copy of the International Hotel Guide and I see that a number of London hotels say, "Tariff on application". They include Claridge's, the Dorchester, the Savoy, the Connaught and the hotel at London Airport—which says "Prix en demande" for the benefit of French people. This is the publication of their prices and it means that, before one books a room, one has to write to the hotel and ask what the tariff is. That would be a publication.
I am very much in favour of parts of the new Clause, for no one should be under any misapprehension about what he is to have to pay. He must not be kept in suspense until the bill arrives at the end of his stay. But as long as he is told exactly what price he is to have to pay and sees the room and is able to decide whether it is worth the price, what I have suggested would be fair.
The British Hotels and Restaurants Association and the Caterers Association both support my Amendment. I should be only too happy to support the Clause if the Minister would accept the Amendment.

Mr. Gower: I am in a sort of half-way house between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir

C. Taylor). The Clause may result in many new procedures. This is the weakness of enabling legislation. No doubt, like many of us, the Minister will have seen the many orders published by successive French Ministers of Tourism about matters of this kind.
I am surprised that the Government have not taken the opportunity to include restaurants. I imagine there is far greater need for these provisions for poor quality restaurants than for poor quality hotels. I may be wrong, but it is my impression that the general standard of lower-priced hotels is often better than that of lower-priced restaurants. It is as much an advantage to the would-be customer of a restaurant to have an estimate of the sort of charges with which he will be confronted as it is to the would-be customer of a hotel.
What the Minister said suggested that this information might be displayed on the back of a hotel bedroom door, or on a wardrobe door, as in France, and my hon. Friend objected to that. I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend about matters of this kind, but I must say that some of the good Continental hotels have often done this extremely discreetly and not in any objectionable manner. I appreciate that an unsightly notice would give great objection, but I have seen small and dignified notices on the back of, say, wardrobe doors.
The deep anxiety felt by many people about this provision arises from their fear that it may be deemed to be the initiation of some sort of price control. I am glad that the Minister has emphasised that that is not his intention. He will recall that during the war there was an attempt at some sort of price control for hotels and restaurants. Its consequences were extremely unhappy. There were attempts to impose a ceiling on the price of meals, with allowances for having a licence, for music, and so on. In the opinion of many objective judges, the resulting quality of the meals was abysmally poor. It is, therefore, not unnatural that those connected with the industry should have deep anxiety about that aspect of the publication of prices
On balance, however, I feel that advantage will accrue from reasonable publication. One would have to ensure that publication was at the point of arrival. I believe that the French legislation prescribes that publication shall be


at the entrances to a hotel, the front entrance, side entrance and even the back entrance. The most recent French orders may also prescribe publication at the reception area. It would be for the tourist boards and the association, after considering the practice in other parts of the world, to decide where it would be best to have publication.
It is all a matter of dignified presentation. A notice would be somewhat undignified outside a first-class hotel, but it is possible for such a notice to be near the position where many Continental hotels publish notices of their approval by holiday and tourist authorities, automobile associations, tourist agencies, and so on. Publication in such a place would have dignity and taste. Presentation is obviously extremely important.
I hope that the Minister will be able to go a little further to remove the apprehensions that publication may be unsightly or unseemly and will give more details to allay the reasonable fears that the Clause may be a sort of stepping stone to the introduction of price control. The introduction of any sort of price control for this industry would be extremely bad and difficult to apply. As my hon. Friend has said, there are so many changes in costs—

Mr. Speaker: We may not debate price control. I heard the hon. Member's earlier reference to it, but it is not covered by the Clause.

Mr. Gower: I will not elaborate on that aspect of the matter, Sir. I want the Minister to remove the fears about that aspect of the matter and to give an assurance that no Order will be presented to the House until after detailed consideration and consultation. It is of the utmost importance that there should be consultation, so that the result will be publication which is agreeable, artistic and unobjectionable.
With those reservations, I find myself supporting the Clause, which should be beneficial.

Mr. Tony Gardner: As one who is merely a consumer of hotels, if I may use that phrase, I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Clause. The Bill will give considerable assistance to a vitally important industry and it is right that at the same time we should

take what steps we think right to offer consumers some protection.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), whose experience in these matters I respect, does not see eye to eye with the Minister on the Clause, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is missing some of the point. Like the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), I have found that some of the best hotels in this country and abroad display all kind of notices in bedrooms, important notices which set out the kinds of facilities available to the visitor. I have no objection to this. Were they the kind of notices described in passing by the hon. Member when he referred to the rather narrow-minded bygone days when hotels were worried about what happened in hotel bedrooms, I would be on his side immediately, but this does not happen.
4.30 p.m.
I suspect that he is missing the point when he says that luxury hotels are often excluded, and that hotels like Claridge's and the Dorchester do not publicly state their prices but submit them on application. My hon. Friend is talking about the vastly greater number of tourists coming to this country and the increased amount of tourism within the country, and, in the main, these people will not be going to Claridge's or the Dorchester.

Mr. Gower: Speaking from memory, my impression is that exclusion in France is not an easy matter. It is done only if the appropriate Minister categorises the hotel as being de luxe, and in restaurants only where the menu is in the special category called gastronomique.

Mr. Gardner: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He is quite right.
The Bill is concerned mainly with young people and young married couples with families. This is where there is a vast increase in tourism. These young people may bring a motor car across from France or Germany and tour the country, not on a package tour but making their own way, and we are concerned about the embarrassment which might be caused to them. Surely it is better for them to know precisely what they will have to pay.

Sir C. Taylor: If they come over on a package tour they pay in advance for hotel accommodation, food, travel and everything else, so that they know in advance what they will have to pay.

Mr. Gardner: That is precisely the point I am making. An increasing number of people are coming over from the Continent bringing their motor cars and organising a tour of their own. The family may often arrive at a hotel late at night, it is the last port of call, they cannot move on because the children are screaming their heads off, and they have to take what is going.
Surely it is better for them to know when they go into the hotel precisely what are the charges. If a notice were displayed in the hotel entrance, people could have a quick look at the notice before making inquiries about accommodation. It is not suggested that people are getting poor value. They are not; they are getting good value. But it is important that they should know precisely what they will get for their money.
Last summer my wife and I were in Cyprus, a small country which is anxious to encourage its tourist trade. It was possible to know even in the smallest and cheapest hotel exactly what one had to pay, and one did not have to pay a penny more. The information was on a notice displayed in the hotel entrance and in the hotel bedroom.
I hope that in his discussions with the industry my hon. Friend will be able to produce a reasonable code and that, although this is a very broad enabling Clause, he will be able to include on the notice sufficient information to be helpful. Many hotels have a sliding scale of charges. The price of bedrooms may vary between, say, 32s. 6d. and 42s., and it would be helpful for a family to know precisely what kind of bedroom they will be given for the money which they pay.
Secondly, would it be possible to include in the notice the charges made for extras? It is my impression that this is where much of the embarrassment and disappointment arises. I hope that there can be included on the notice the charges for morning tea or coffee, for serving meals in rooms, baths, arrangements for tipping and the cost of heating and air conditioning.
Finally, if we are to encourage younger people and those of moderate means without vast educational resources, it would be helpful if the notices could be displayed in one or two European languages in addition to English. This

would encourage visitors to feel at home in Britain and do the hotel industry and the consumer a great service.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am delighted that the Minister has introduced this Clause. It makes the Bill much more valuable, it is the greatest single item of consumer protection in the Bill, and I welcome it wholeheartedly.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). The notice must be displayed at the point of sale. The days have passed since "milady" inspected the bedrooms before determining her requirements. The representative who books the hotel accommodation will not have seen it. Therefore, the point of sale at which the notice should be exhibited is where the reservations are made, which is at the reception desk. This is undeniably where the notice should be exhibited.
I take the point of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner). If a notice is to be informative, it must be comprehensive. One wants to know whether heating is included for two reasons: first, it indicates the final demand on resources; and, secondly, if heat is not included and is supplied by a coin-operated device, it is necessary to have a coin of the right denomination before one can avail oneself of it. Many more people are afflicted by this inconvenience than by not being able to afford to pay for the heat.
I would be out of order in discoursing upon the inconvenience caused to the public, for instance, by parking meters, which may cost 6d., 1s., or 2s., and the same applies to hotel heating meters. The notice should, therefore, state whether or not the price of the room includes heating and, if it does not, that there is a coin-operated meter and the denomination of the coin which is required.
The notice should also state whether or not a service charge is included. The service charge sometimes creeps up to as much as a 12½ per cent. loading on the initial charge. The object of the notice is to convey comprehensive information and not just to fulfil the requirements of an Act of Parliament.
Many of us wish to see flexibility of charges. There are arguments in favour of a rigid charging system, but if we want


fuller utilisation of hotel resources by extending the holiday season and making accommodation available at times of the year when previously it has been closed, and if we are to tap a new market, it will have to be done principally by flexibility of charges, in the same way as tour operators and charter operators of aircraft capture new markets by attracting people of varying economic capacity.
The notice should be attached to a location near the reception desk. It would be inconvenient for a hotel which had a large number of bedrooms to have to send someone rushing round all the bedrooms sticking on bits of paper altering the charges, and then tearing them all off again at the weekend. It is reasonable for the charge to be higher at the weekend when the demand is greater. It is also reasonable in hotels catering for commercial travellers to charge less at weekends when the demand is less. This, surely, is how to make the best use of our resources.
Whatever is done about notices, it is most important that accommodation is clean and comfortable. We must not imagine that the mere exhibiting of a notice setting out the price will ensure that the potential consumer is put in possession of every relevant piece of information. The Minister made no such claim for this Clause which sets out to do something that is very necessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) prayed in aid the goddess of dignity. Far to much outrage is perpetrated in her name. We need not worry too much that any Minister of any party will force upon the industry huge, unsightly notices which are totally unsuitable for many types of building. We are told that the Minister will undertake consultation before the form of requirement is settled. Many establishments do not lend themselves to a large area of display by the reception desk, particularly the old country pub type of establishment.
I take the point about restaurant charges. I am all for the consumer knowing what will be charged before the moment of commitment arrives. Few things infuriate me more than ordering from a menu that reads "Bacon, sausages, tomatoes and kidney" and getting a slice of bacon, one sausage, half a

kidney and one tomato. The sheer indignation with which one is greeted when asking for a quantity to be supplied not less than that specified in the menu has to be experienced to be believed. There is a bad habit of using the plural for what is singular or even part of the singular.
But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing a recognisable commodity, a bedroom, so that misunderstandings of that kind do not arise. It would be ludicrous in pursuit of consumer protection if we sought to specify that the notice must show the width and length of the bed, although if a bed is inadequate it can be extraordinarily uncomfortable for everybody concerned. I have suffered inconvenience when abroad, as no doubt have many other inexperienced travellers, at the massive charge imposed for a bath.
I have also been amazed at the point at which the expenditure is demanded of me, namely, on entering the bathroom, since I do not normally carry my total funds with me in my dressing gown pocket. A charge of 7s. 6d. demanded by a concierge on entering a bathroom in Luxembourg is a most unnerving experience. If a room does not have a bath and does not include the free use of a bath, this should be stated. I am endeavouring to distinguish between all the matters which could possibly be stated but which it would be unreasonable to require and the minimum which it is reasonable to require. We would not thereby be laying an unreasonable burden upon the industry.
This is not a theoretical discussion. Since such information is already given in hotels in Britain today; its practicability is amply demonstrated. Where establishments do not display notices, one is entitled to ask why they do not. I would take a lot of convincing that aesthetics is the prime reason for failure to exhibit information of this kind. A good deal of the lack of such notices occurs simply because it has never been done before, and so long as there is a reasonable turnover no reason is seen to alter the almost inherent inertia. The more that a potential purchaser is informed, the fewer the angry scenes, disputes and subsequent unpleasantness. Therefore, it is to everybody's advantage


that there should be sufficient information.
I am glad to see this example of the Minister's having digested thoroughly points which were raised in Committee on the Bill, and I commend the new Clause. I hope that when the Minister comes to formalise the requirement under the Clause it will not be in the form of a large notice in the bedroom, but will be at the point of sale. I agree that it is too late once a person has entered into the contract and entered the room, even if legally it is not too late to quibble about it. The number of people who, at that point, are at liberty to collect their luggage and drive away in search of accommodaion, which, late at night, may well be difficult to find, is a proportion of the consuming public with which we need not trouble ourselves too much, since it is insignificant.
4.45 p.m.
Having said all this, I appreciate that there still will be misunderstandings where information is given over the telephone, certainly when it is given in a language that is not immediately recognisable as English. A large proportion of the hotel industry now employs people who are not English. I was not thinking of the Welsh. I was thinking more of the Spanish. It would be out of order to discuss whether or not General Franco intends to withdraw Spanish labour from Britain as well as from Gibraltar, but misunderstandings easily arise. It is lamentable that to stay reasonably in some English hotels, one needs a good command of foreign languages. We all have experiences of this kind, and I am not thinking of hotels which are particularly expensive or inexpensive.
With that sincere welcome to the Clause, I look forward to seeing it embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I intervene briefly to support the Clause and to express the hope that it will enable, and even persuade, hotels to display separately the charges for breakfast and board. I frequently suffer indigestion through annoyance at having paid for breakfasts I do not consume, or from the fact that I eat the breakfast I have paid for but do not want.
It is a bad British custom that most establishments insist on making a charge

for breakfast, whether or not the visitor wants it. Some British Transport hotels show these charges separately. Such a practice would not inconvenience establishments a great deal, since food for breakfasts which were not required could be kept for other occasions. In these days food can be kept for a long time. In fact, it seems to me that some of the bacon I have eaten is kept indefinitely. I hope that one thing the Clause will bring about is the separation of charges for bed and breakfast.

Mr. Michael Noble: I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill, and I have listened with some interest to the discussion on the new Clause. As I understand, all that the Minister is trying to do is to make certain that the price for accommodation is set out clearly, rather than all the other matters which have been mentioned.
I disagree strongly with the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. R. Atkins) about breakfasts, certainly in respect of Scotland. I have enjoyed Scottish breakfasts for the best part of 50 years. There must be few people who normally breakfast in Scotland who do not enjoy enormously the magnificent breakfast fare supplied there—as I am sure the hon. Member for Aberdeen. South (Mr. Dewar) will confirm—with kippers, haddock, and so on.
In the more outlying parts of Scotland, hotels for a long time have made a reasonable charge for bed and breakfast. The type of breakfast served is rather different from that normally served in the larger London hotels where it is possible to have Continental, semi-Continental and other types of breakfast—right down to a plain "Bloody Mary" if one's hangover is sufficiently bad.
In considering the Clause, I would like the House to bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) has said. We are trying to make sure that people arriving at hotels have a fair chance of knowing what they have to pay for a room and breakfast, if required. It is far more important to follow a practice which is becoming more common. During my travels round the country I go to a great number of hotels, and it is now quite commonplace to be given with one's key a small slip which states the price of the room.
I do not care whether a woman has arrived late at night with a number of squawling children and may not know of anywhere else to go. If she knows what she is in for, she can say "Yes" or "No". If she has a reasonable amount of gumption and finds the bedroom intolerable, she can ask for something better. If it is no improvement on the first, she will move out. She knows when she arrives what she is in for, and that is all that the Minister is trying to do.
If we drag in other matters, such as the amount of S.E.T. being added, we shall finish up with an Order in Council which will be intolerable to the hotel trade and of very little use to the ordinary person. Inevitably, if one is faced with a mass of information of that sort, one does not bother to read the small print.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: But surely no one is given a key until he has signed the register and already entered into the contract. Surely the information is required before one decides whether to enter into the contract.

Mr. Noble: I have never regarded signing a register as any sort of contract. Having signed the register, if I do not like the room, I say so, whereupon either I do better or I get out. I appreciate that if a woman arrives with a number of squawling children, that may be different, but I do not agree that signing the register represents a legal contract.
I simply want the ordinary traveller arriving at a hotel to know the cost of the room which he is offered. Most people who travel are reasonably intelligent, and we all know the normal form. Provided that we know the basic price of the room, we shall make sure that we do not have 15 large dry martinis and so double the bill. We need something simple, and I suggest that it should be made compulsory for a hotel, at the time of handing over a key, to give a card showing the price of the room. That is what is needed, rather than more complicated regulations about having to look behind the door to see the price.
I would advise the Minister to make the Order in Council provide for a simple, clear, notice which is handed over with the key to each bedroom.

Mr. John Pardoe: I apologise at the outset for not being

present to hear the Minister's speech. I support the Clause and have some reservations about the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), although I share his feeling about the importance of the hotel trade.
The first question that we have to ask is how the information will be brought to the notice of persons under the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. If the Amendment is incorporated in the Clause, the position is left extremely open for verbal or written notice, which is too wide a choice to allow. If it is not by written notice, I do not see how it can be made clear to the holiday-maker.

Sir C. Taylor: I thought that I had made it quite clear that in the United States and other countries, on arrival at a hotel one is given a card stating the price and the type of accommodation.

Mr. Pardoe: I am grateful for that intervention, and I will come to that point later.
The understanding of the spoken word, over the telephone or otherwise, is extremely uncertain, even in one's own language. One or two hon. Members have said how difficult it is when people speak in a foreign language, but it can be equally difficult sometimes for a North countryman to understand a Cornishman.
It is important to have a clearly written notice so that one can understand what is being said. I had a mystifying experience some years ago which was solved only by seeing a notice clearly displayed in a hotel bedroom. I was in Brittany, with my wife and small baby. I had booked a room by letter in my best French. The hotel proprietor replied in his best English, which was the wrong way of doing things as both were extremely bad. However, I had looked at the price in the A.A. Handbook and thought that the price confirmed to me by the hotel more or less tied up with it.
A severe misunderstanding occurred. The A.A. Handbook did not quote the August price, but the average price for the season. It turned out in the end that I had booked for two adults and a child for two weeks demi-pension, and the hotel quoted for something very different. I thought that the prices were the same and, as a result, I misunderstood the booking.
When I arrived in my room and had time to do a small calculation I discovered not only would the bill be substantially higher than I expected, but that I would not have enough money to pay it at the end of the fortnight. Had I arrived in an English hotel and not confirmed the price, I would have got to the end of the fortnight, and my embarrassment would have been considerable. As it was, we were able to leave and find cheaper accommodation. It is extremely important, therefore, for a tourist to be able to sit down at his leisure and work out the price that he is being charged.
I also think that it is important to have the price of the booking clearly set out in writing from the point of view of the hotelier. A case in my constituency last summer leads me to that conclusion. A holiday-maker from Gorton with his wife, their child aged 4 and a baby, Karen, aged nine months, arrived at a hotel having booked accommodation for the mid-season period the previous January. He sayed for two weeks, paid the bill and, on his way home, telephoned his bank and cancelled the cheque.
Unfortunately, the case made the national Press, and he told one newspaper:
I felt that there would be a concession for the baby and intended sorting it out when I got to the hotel. Five days before leaving. I mentioned it to the manager and he said that he would discuss it with his partner. When I went to settle the account I was told that the bill for Karen would stand.
A great deal of adverse publicity for the resort was engendered as a result of which one or two national newspapers gave it headline treatment. Naturally, the hotelier felt sore about it. He had done exactly as he should have done. The booking was confirmed in writing. There was no question of the holiday-maker not having to pay the full bill and, in the end, he did. If there had been a clear notice displayed in his room, setting out the terms which he had agreed, I do not believe that the ensuing embarrassment would have occurred. I agree that it must be displayed—

Mr. Noble: Is the notice in the room now to include details about whether a person has a baby? This is becoming absurd.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Pardoe: I do not think that it is absurd. It is very important, because the reduction here was 50 per cent. and many people may expect that the reduction for a baby being fed on baby food out of a tin will be more than 50 per cent. In some hotels it is more, in others less. It is extremely important that the notice is not very complicated, but it should be possible to set out the terms under which the room is let.
Much will depend, obviously, on whether the room is for one person, two persons, or two persons and a child. I am not arguing that the Order in Council should lay down exactly what these things are, but for the protection of hoteliers, as well as tourists, it is far better that these things are set out. I agree that the display of the notice should be at the point of sale, but the trouble is where is that? With an advance booking in writing I imagine that it is in a person's home, so obviously the notice cannot be displayed then. Perhaps the best way would be to have some standard form for booking which everyone would understand.
There has to be a distinction, and this brings me back to the Amendment, between those who arrive having booked in advance and those who arrive "off the road". In the latter case what normally happens is that a member of the party, usually the man, goes into the hotel and finds out the terms. He makes up his mind about them and says "Yes" or "No". If someone books in advance he does not necessarily, if there has been correspondence with the hotel, tie up loose ends when he arrives. Usually, people go straight upstairs, have a bath and tumble into bed. It is only afterwards that the tourist has time to consider whether the accommodation adds up to what he has been led to expect. There is a need for display at the desk and in the bedroom.
Dealing with the problem about foreign languages, a constituent of mine devised a remarkable scheme, under the heading of "Mrs. B and B". I have had correspondence with the Board of Trade about it and had hoped that it would be fairly generally accepted. It was a system of symbols advertised on a very attractive poster which now hangs outside


many bed and breakfast houses in Cornwall, indeed the north coast is littered with these signs. There are six circles, one is the symbol for a telephone, another for two taps, and so on. Even if someone does not understand Cornish, they can see what the symbols mean. It is a useful scheme, but it should not be forced down people's throats. I hope that the new tourist boards and the Tourist Authority will consider this favourably.

Mr. Emery: I thank the Minister for introducing this Clause, particularly since he will remember that in Committee I drew attention to the fact that there were a few black sheep in the industry who went out of their way at busy weekends, or during the high season, when arrangements had not been settled beforehand, to attempt to maximise their takings. Instead of setting out what tariffs were, they would suddenly decide at the end of the stay that they would charge what they thought they could get out of the resident. No one would do anything other than condemn this, and I am glad that the Minister has gone some way towards dealing with it.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider seriously the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). There are two points about it which need to be emphasised. A number of speakers have discussed breakfast, which the Amendment does not mention, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) has brought in 15 dry martinis! I must say that he is more of a man than I. I could have understood it if it had been 15 Scotch whiskies. This Amendment has to do with the display of the tariff and the price a person will be asked to pay. It has been said that this should be known at the point of sale, but, as the new Clause is worded, this may not happen and it would be possible to display the sign in the room.
If my hon. Friend's Amendment was accepted the new Clause would read:
… by an Order in Council applying to, or to any class of, hotels and other establishments in Great Britain at which sleeping accommodation is provided by way of trade or business, make provision for requiring that information with respect to the prices charged there for such accommodation as aforesaid is brought to the notice of persons seeking to avail themselves of the accommodation.

"Seeking to avail themselves." That is the important point, because that would mean that the information had to be provided before the person got to the hotel bedroom. This is often done by handing a person a small card, which often carries other information about services, with the room key.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) said that if this was in the hotel it could be discreetly displayed, and mentioned how he had sometimes seen it on the back of a wardrobe door. This seems to be avoiding the whole point. There is no point in hiding it under the basin or having to make it a major part of the display over the mantelpiece or at the side of the bed. If it was done on a piece of paper when the person takes the room, it would be much better.
It has been said that it would be helpful if tariffs were displayed outside, but this is going too far, because the price will depend on the room, whether it has a shower or a bath, whether, to break into song, it is "A room with a view", whether it is at the back of the hotel, on the direct lift instead of the staircase. The information cannot be given to a potential resident unless his precise requirements are known. Therefore, again it seems to me that the Amendment makes sense.
The British Hotels and Restaurants Association, which discussed this matter after we left it in Committee, said that there were many objections to having to display tariffs. It went on to say that until the introduction of the Bill the words
pay a reasonable sum for the service and facilities provided
which the Hotel Proprietors Act of 1956 had laid down had, on the whole, been fairly useful. We discussed whether the display of tariffs should be confined to establishments benefiting under the incentive of this scheme. I am glad that the Minister has not taken that more limited point, because I believe that if this is done properly we can go on to have the direct information made quite clear.
The Hotels and Restaurants Association considers that the right solution is that when hotels make bookings, either in advance or on the spot, they should indicate in writing, in unambiguous terms, the prices being charged, and exactly what those prices include—room


and breakfast, Continental breakfast, service charge, or inclusive tariff. I have taken that from the memorandum put out on 10th June by the association, because it is most relevant to our discussion, and provides direct support from the practitioners in the industry for what my hon. Friend is suggesting.
I again thank the Minister for going as far as he can, but I wonder whether he can make our pleasure even more definite by considering the matter further. If he is not willing to consider it now, will he undertake to consider it again in another place and deal with it by introducing an Amendment of his own if he thinks that our Amendment is inadequate? The point at issue is fairly clear, and I hope that we can have a direct answer to it. I shall, if necessary, support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.

Sir John Gilmour: I support the view that the Minister should accept the Amendment. I cannot help feeling that while we have been engaged in this discussion we have overlooked the fact that a large percentage of hotels are booked through travel agents, or on the telephone, or in writing, than on the spot. I think I am right in saying that city hotels will go in for computerised central bookings, and, therefore, this question of displaying tariffs is likely to become less and less important. What people require when they go into an hotel is verification of what the charges are for the accommodation which has been allotted to them.
The Amendment is the most sensible way of dealing with the very situation which is likely to arise in connection with hotel bookings in the future, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I am glad to take an interest in the Bill once more. I spoke on Second Reading, but, unfortunately, I was not a member of the Committee, although I should have liked to have been.
I was not able to be here for the first few minutes of the debate, and I apologise to the Minister for my absence. I think that the Clause will be very much welcomed, particularly in the North of England, and in the Lake District, which I represent. There is nothing which

creates more distrust and leaves a nastier taste in the mouths of people who stay at hotels than the suspicion that they might be overcharged. I have not had any complaints, or heard any suspicions expressed, that any of my constituents in the hotel business have been guilty of the temptation to overcharge if they thought they could get away with a little more.
The Clause will be welcomed in the Lake District because, to a large extent, we have a different type of tourist. We get young people from all over the world who come there to climb and to walk and to see its great natural beauty. These young people tend to lack experience, not only of our country, in the sense that they come from overseas, but of staying at hotels or boarding houses.
I welcome the Amendment, because the fewer notices there are in hotels the better it will be. There is nothing which epitomises more clearly the worst in British hotel and boarding-house keeping than the whole place cluttered with notices.
Part of the new Clause talks about
information with respect to the prices charged …
The most important piece of information which many people who stay at hotels want is about the method of payment which will be acceptable. We are moving more and more away from the system of paying by cash, but a fairly high proportion of people still use this method, and foreign visitors often wish to pay their hotel bills in foreign currency. They sometimes wish to leave the hotel or boarding house early in the morning to go climbing. At about 8 o'clock they offer to settle their bills in francs, or Deutsche marks, or pesetas, but it is too early to ring the bank to discover the current going rate of exchange. This sometimes leads to confusion and problems. As I understand, the phrase
information with respect to the prices charged
technically covers the method of payment.
Many transactions are now concluded by means of credit payments. More and more people are now prepared to accept cheques in settlement of accounts. I think that we all welcome the cheque indemnity arrangements whereby the proprietor of a business takes out an insurance policy and all the cheques that


he receives are honoured and guaranteed. It is a good move for the British tourist industry that we should be prepared to accept credit, whether by means of bank credit cards, or under the arrangements made through large credit houses such as American Express.
I hope that as many of our hotel keepers and boarding-house keepers as possible will go out of their way to explain to people when they arrive at their hotels the methods of payment which will be accepted. As the Minister has it in mind to make that sort of information available, I hope that he will accept the Amendment. I think that it will do exactly what he seeks to do, but in a more acceptable way, and in a way which is more in keeping with the changing and improving standards of the British hotel industry.

Mr. Peter Blaker: Every hon. Member has welcomed the new Clause, and I do so myself. In this modern age, the hotel visitor should know what he is in for when he takes up his accommodation. The question is whether the Amendments should be made. They would not destroy the purpose of the new Clause or significantly weaken it. They would remove the emphasis on display, while retaining the emphasis on telling the prospective resident the price. The object of the exercise which the Government must have had in mind will still be satisfied—to maintain the good reputation of British hotels for fair dealing and good relations with their clients by ensuring that full information is given, before the visitor begins his stay, of what he will have to pay.
It is enough to give the Government the power by Order in Council to ensure that that information is conveyed in writing. I agree that it is unsatisfactory to rely on the telephone alone, but nothing in the Amendment would prevent the Government from insisting on communication in writing—whether by letter before the visitor arrives, or by card at the reception desk. There has been a good deal of discussion about displaying notices in rooms, a method which I do not like. Rates may vary between the weekend and the week or between different types of visitor—for instance, those on package tours and those in large groups.
These are practical reasons for the Amendment. Then there are the aesthetic ones. It is not only in the luxury hotels that people are against notices in the rooms. It is true of places like Claridge's, and, I think, of the middle range hotels which are increasingly catering for the Jumbo jet visitors. Americans will not welcome notices of rates behind bedroom doors. They would prefer a card at the reception desk if they did not already have something in writing.
Some hon. Members opposite talked about notices being in different languages and including such information as differential rates for babies and the inclusion of breakfasts, so they will be 18, rather than six, inches square. That will not be attractive. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) suggested that it might protect the hotelier if notices were displayed in bedrooms. There is nothing to prevent an hotelier from doing this. We are discussing whether the Government should have the power to compel them. I do not think that they should.
I agree with the objective of the new Clause, and it will be maintained if the Amendment is accepted. In the interests of brevity, which is always desirable in legislation, and of not giving the Government more powers than they need, it should be accepted. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept it, I hope that my hon. Friend will press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. William Rodgers: The reception of this Clause has exceeded my expectations. There have been kindly and generous tributes on all sides and I am glad that it largely meets the wishes expressed in Committee. It will be a useful step forward and will make our hotels much more attractive to visitors and help to avoid occasional misunderstandings. I can tell the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) that there is no provision in the Clause for the method of payment. Although there is merit in his suggestion, I do not think that he would be any more enamoured than I am of the suggestion that we should legislate in detail for the way hotels' affairs are ordered. But developments like that might be more likely with the Clause.
The main discussion has been about how this information should be conveyed. There is some misunderstanding about the Clause and the effect of the


Amendments. The latter would have no effect on the terms in which the information might be required. An Order in Council could still specify display, as now, under the Clause, an Order need not specify display. Display is mentioned as one of the means of giving information and is not the exclusive method. We fully recognise the points made about the differences of opinion here and I would hope that our consultations would result in an Order which would best meet the need and provide the least inconvenience to the hotels and those who use them.
The Clause refers to display in establishments and not necessarily in bedrooms. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) seemed to think that there would be some obligation to provide notices in bedrooms, but the Clause says no such thing. It leaves the way open.
I would ask the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) to reflect carefully on his Amendments. Although they would not eliminate the possibility of an Order dealing with display, they would slightly widen the Clause, so I hope that he will leave it to the good sense of the industry and those who will consult it so to devise an Order as to meet as many as possible of the wishes of the industry and its consumers.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I was not successful in catching Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye and wanted to put this point. The Clause does not mention the phrase "maximum charge". What would be the position of someone who displayed a notice in the bedroom and then, for commercial reasons, decided to reduce the charge—for a party for instance? Would he then be committing an offence?

Mr. Rodgers: He would not be committing an offence. The purpose of the Clause is to enable the individual or the group coming to an hotel and taking accommodation to know how much he or they will have to pay for it. That is the total burden of the Clause.

Mr. Costain: The Minister has misunderstood me. I am not talking about the control charges—the notice on the back of the bedroom door stating that the price of the bedroom for one is 47s. 6d. or another price for two. If the hotel proprietor, in his commercial judgment, decides

to reduce the charge for that particular party on that occasion, the person in the bedroom will not complain, but I want to know whether the hotel proprietor will be committing an offence for charging less.

Mr. Rodgers: No, he will not be committing an offence. There is no attempt to state maximum or minimum charges. It is a matter of displaying information. If the hotelier says, "You have stayed here for a week, so I have decided not to charge you so much", that is fair. We should have a commonsense approach. My point is that the Amendment would not eliminate the possibility of an Order in Council specifying display. On the contrary, the Amendment tends to widen the purpose of new Clause 1. In providing for enabling powers of an Order in Council, we are not saying now, and the Bill does not say, that display shall be the method of conveying information. This is one possibility which ought to be considered before an order in Council is framed.

Mr. Blaker: If the Minister is saying that the Amendment does not make much difference, why is he so keen to leave in those words? Is not the result likely to be that the emphasis on display, which, after all, is the first part of the new Clause—it is only later than we get to
otherwise for securing that such information is brought to the notice of"—
will lead people and a future Government to believe that the intention is that display should be the method prescribed?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think so. The hon. Gentleman, in his opening remarks, used the word "emphasis". He was probably then clear on the burden of the Amendment. There is some division of opinion in the House whether display is or is not desirable. I am not eliminating the possibility that there may be display. I am merely saying that the Clause does not require such display as there may be to be in bedrooms. It might be display at the reception counter. In other words, the new Clause leaves the position wide open. The only effect of the Amendment will be to remove what the hon. Member for Blackpool, South says is the emphasis. But the emphasis is irrelevant to any decision embodied in an Order in Council. Consultation will take place with the trade, and the views of


the House will be noted. Display will not be eliminated. As now, it would be one of the possible ways of passing information over.

Mr. Emery: I should like to press the Minister on the interpretation that he is giving to the Clause if it is amended. He says that this would not limit display. I should like to ask him about the use of the word "may". The Clause states that the Order may be made, but the Order will be that
… information with respect to the prices charged there for such accommodation as aforesaid … is brought to the notice of persons seeking to avail themselves of the accommodation.
In other words, we are being more restrictive. We are saying that it is for the hotelier personally to bring it to people's attention, not by a notice somewhere near the reception desk. This is a definite act, so that display is not the way that this would be done. Therefore, is not the Minister misleading the House, because we are bringing this down to eliminate the general display, particularly

in the bedroom, which the Clause would allow?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that the hon. Gentleman has it wrong. I must ask him to believe me. If he and his hon. Friends wish to take this to a Division, no doubt they will do so in due course. I was seeking to help them. Whereas they may wish to divide on a number of points of substance, I doubt whether they will wish to divide on a point of no substance, least of all to widen a Clause which I understand they wish to narrow. I hope that when the time comes the Amendment will not be pressed or, if it is, that it will be negatived.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause: In line 3, leave out 'the display at the establishments of' and insert 'that'.—[Sir C. Taylor.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 218.

Division No. 279.]
AYES
[5.35 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gibson-Watt, David
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Astor, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Glover, Sir Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bell, Ronald
Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.


Biffen, John
Grant, Anthony
Marten, Neil


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Maude, Angus


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Braine, Bernard
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Monro, Hector


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
More, Jasper


Bullus, Sir Eric
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Channon, H. P. G.
Higgins, Terence L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Chataway, Christopher
Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hill, J. E. B.
Nott, John


Clark, Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian



Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Corfield, F. V.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John
Peel, John


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Percival, Ian


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Currie, G. B. H.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Dance, James
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dean, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pym, Francis



Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Lambton, Viscount
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Emery, Peter
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Eyre, Reginald
Lee-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert
Royle, Anthony


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Russell, Sir Ronald


Foster, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
St. John-Stevas, Norman




Sharples, Richard
Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wiggin, A. W.


Silvester, Frederick
Tilney, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sinclair, Sir George
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Woodnutt, Mark


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wylie, N. R.


Speed, Keith
Vickers, Dame Joan
Younger, Hn. George


Stodart, Anthony
Waddington, David



Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Summers, Sir Spencer
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Ward, Dame Irene





NOES


Abse, Leo
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Molloy, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Moonman, Eric


Ashley, Jack
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hannan, William
Moyle, Roland


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Albert


Barnes, Michael
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Neal, Harold


Barnett, Joel
Hazell, Bert
Newens, Stan


Beaney, Alan
Heffer, Eric S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Henig, Stanley
Ogden, Eric


Bidwell, Sydney
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
O'Malley, Brian


Binns, John
Hooley, Frank
Oram, Albert E.


Bishop, E. S.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orbach, Maurice


Blackburn, F.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Orme, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oswald, Thomas



Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Boston, Terence
Huckfield, Leslie
Padley, Walter


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boyden, James
Hunter, Adam
Pardoe, John


Bradley, Tom
Hynd, John
Pavitt, Laurence


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pentland, Norman


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Coe, Denis
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roebuck, Roy


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, John (Reading)
Rowlands, E.


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Ryan, John


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lipton, Marcus
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dobson, Ray
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Doig, Peter
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunn, James A.
McBride, Neil
Slater, Joseph


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McCann, John
Small, William


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
MacColl, James
Snow, Julian


Eadie, Alex
Macdonald, A. H.
Spriggs, Leslie


Edelman, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Symonds, J. B.


Ennals, David
Maclennan, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thornton, Ernest


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, Archie
Tomney, Frank


Finch, Harold
Marks, Kenneth
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Fowler, Gerry
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Freeson, Maudling
Mendelson, John
Wallace, George


Gardner, Tony
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wellbeloved, James


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)







Whitaker, Ben
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Woof, Robert


White, Mrs. Eirene
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)



Wilkins, W. A.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

Clause added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX: REFUND OF PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES OF HOTELS AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL ESTABLISHMENTS

(1) With a view to encouraging the extension, alteration and improvement of existing hotels, where an employer has paid selective employment tax for any contribution week beginning after the coming into force of this Act in respect of a person employed in an establishment falling under heading 884 of the minimum list headings in the Standard Industrial Classification the relevant Minister shall make to that employer in respect of that person and that week a payment of an amount equal to the tax paid.

(2) Subsection (1) of section 52 of the Finance Act 1968 is hereby repealed.—[Mr. Emery.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Emery: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): It will be convenient also to debate the following:

NEW CLAUSE 10

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX: REFUND OF PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF LIFE GUARDS

NEW CLAUSE 11

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX: REFUND OF PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES IN CAFÉS OR RESTAURANTS

NEW CLAUSE 12

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX: REFUND OF PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES ON CAMPING OR CARAVAN SITES

Amendment No. 32, in page 3, line 40, at end insert:
(4) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, a scheme under this section for encouraging the construction, extension or improvement of hotels may provide for the repayment by the relevant Minister to persons who have paid taxes in respect of hotels of a proportion of such taxes.

Mr. Emery: This is the Development of Tourism Bill, but if any individual or army of individuals connected with tourism were asked what would be of the greatest benefit to tourism and its development, I am sure that the answer would be the abolition of Selective Employment Tax for tourism in general and for hotels specifically. The weakness of the Bill, and it is a very severe weakness, is that it entirely ignores S.E.T. The Opposition feel it important to attempt at this late stage to rectify a situation which the Government blandly ignored and did not correct in Standing Committee.
I have two specific questions which I challenge the Minister to answer. First, in considering the tourist industry and hotels specifically, which are defined in the S.E.T. legislation as a service industry, will he tell me what service industry earns more foreign currency? He knows, and I know, that more than £300 million worth of foreign exchange came into the Exchequer last year from this source. That being so, how can he maintain that these industries fall into the normal Government definition of a service industry? Second, what other service industry achieved anything like the foreign currency savings achieved by the tourist trade and the hotel industry?
I refer the Minister of State to the fortieth annual report of the B.T.A. It says:
It is worth emphasising here that far more of our own people spend their holidays in Britain than go abroad. In 1967 over 30 million British people spent their 'main' holidays in Britain … Expenditure by home holidaymakers amounted to £560 million ….
This is an important way in which the tourist industry prevents a large amount of expenditure going abroad, by encouraging people to have their holidays here rather than using hard-earned foreign currency which the Exchequer needs. There needs to be rethinking by the Government about the way in which S.E.T. affects tourism.
The House may think that in debates on the Finance Bill and on the Second Reading of this Bill we have raised this


point ad nauseam, but the Government pay no attention whatever. We intend to go on hammering at this because by our proposals there could be more of a benefit to assist the industry than all the financial grants and aids given by the Bill. The hotel industry has three vital rôles to play. It has to provide hotel accommodation adequate in quantity and quality, located in the right areas, for overseas visitors to Britain. It has to provide accommodation, again in the right locations and quantity, for home holidaymakers. It has to provide the facilities required throughout the country by business men.
When one considers those three requirements one sees that the hotels are just as important as any aspect of manufacturing industry, which does not have the burden of S.E.T. upon it. When the selective employment tax was introduced in 1966, it was stressed that the scheme was to move labour out of non-exporting industries to exporting industries. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that S.E.T. should be used to move employees out of the hotel and tourist industry? The latest figures produced by the British Hotel and Restaurant Association show that in the hotel industry there is a labour force of approximately a quarter of a million at the moment. It is estimated that there is a shortfall of 46,000 jobs for skilled staff in the industry.
Surely the Government's argument falls by the wayside concerning the hotel industry. There is not a surplus of labour; there is an acute shortage of about 20 per cent. It was estimated that the effect of S.E.T. on the industry would mean an increase of approximately 10 per cent. on costs of labour, resulting overall in an extra £20 million being found by tourism and the hotel industry. We now find that with the new increase, which is being debated in the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, the extra operating costs will be 3½ per cent. or 4½ per cent. This will be increased by 50 per cent. by the new imposition.
The Minister of State will accept that hotels are as important as shipping and airline companies, but those are exempt from S.E.T. Why not exempt hotels, which are providing the end product for those who come to this country by airline or ship? The hotel industry is the vital second stage. Fairness demands that the

Government should give the industry the same treatment as they give to airlines and shipping. Frequently the President of the Board of Trade appears to neglect the heavy effect of S.E.T. on the hotel industry through its having to provide services for 24 hours a day. That is not the normal situation in manufacturing industry or transport services. The imposition of S.E.T. which hotels have to face means an increased charge or reduced services. Surely the Minister of State wishes to avoid reduced services which would be unacceptable to overseas visitors?
The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not possible to absorb the extra tax imposed on the industry. In present conditions of full employment within the hotel industry, the only alternative which operators have is either to decrease services, particularly in the evenings or at the weekends—which cannot be advantageous—or to put up the charges to be borne by foreign travellers. I stress the great growth there has been in tourism. This is what the Bill is seeking to encourage. In Western Europe in 1960 somewhat over three-quarters of a million tourists came to the United Kingdom. By last year the number had increased by 1,100,000 to slightly over 1,800,000. There has been a massive increase in the number of American tourists coming here. In total there has been a growth from 1·2 million to 3·1 million.
The Minister may say that that is not good enough and that the industry should be encouraged to do even better to obtain even greater foreign earnings. That is why there are specific provisions to provide grants in the region of £10 million. The dichotomy is that with one hand the Government give and with the other hand they take away. In the last eight months they have made a great song and dance about the extra benefit to the hotel and tourist industry given by grants and loans, but the Chancellor decided to take out of the industry by increased S.E.T. nearly £10 million, in addition to the £20 million already being taken from the industry.
6.0 p.m.
When I made this point in Committee the Government gave this deplorable reply:
In reply to the question of S.E.T., may I say that the Bill represents an attempt to


extend the already generous grants which the Government are giving to this industry, and which the Opposition failed to give during their period of office?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 17th April, 1969; c. 347.]
It is important to put that into perspective. The Conservative Government did not take £30 million through this tax from the industry. The industry is, on balance £20 million worse off under a Socialist Government than it was under a Conservative Government.
Standard Industrial Classification 884 covers
hotels, motels holiday camps, guest houses, boarding houses, hostels and similar establishments providing furnished accommodation with food and service for reward but excluding licensed or residential clubs,
which come under a different heading. Many people would contend that we should seek to extend this, but we assert that the power and logic of the argument as it applies to hotels and guest houses in particular warrant the Government's reconsidering the matter.
It is important that this action should be taken now, because the new rate of tax comes into force on 7th July. This is particularly hard on smaller establishments which fixed their rates and accepted bookings six to nine months ago. They cannot have included clauses providing that the quoted tariff would be subject to revision if the Government once again increased this tax. These people, who entered into firm contracts as to the rates they will charge in July and September, will be forced by the Government to incur substantially higher operating costs, which they will be unable to recoup. If the tax is to be imposed on this industry, the Government should postpone the increase till the end of September.
The Clause seeks to abolish the tax, but if we cannot move the stony heart of the Chancellor or of the President of the Board of Trade, will the Government consider postponing the imposition of this increase? An increase of 3 per cent. on total operating costs eats up the total annual profit. I am not talking about the type of profit earned by large hotel groups. I am talking about small establishments in the West country, on the South Coast, at Blackpool, at Morecambe, at Scarborough, and in Scotland, whose proprietors expect to make a profit of only 3–5 per cent. on their total turnover

for the season. This is what they live on for the rest of the year.
It is no use the Minister saying that these people do not matter. These are the people who provide the accommodation for English, Scottish and Welsh nationals who holiday in Britain instead of holidaying overseas. From the point of view of saving foreign currency they are just as important as the large hotels which cater for foreign visitors.
The Government are trying to have it both ways, as so frequently happens with this Government. They make a song and dance about something, but a few months later they reverse the whole procedure so that any of the advantages originally granted are taken away with interest. This happened in the Budget. The greatest contribution the Government could make to ensuring the fullest development of this industry would be to exempt this industry from the imposition of this tax.

Mr. Costain: I support the Clause. In accordance with the tradition of the House, I declare an interest in that I am a director of a London hotel. I do not want to plead the case on behalf of hotels, however. I want to plead it on behalf of my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) laid special emphasis on the effect this tax has on small and other hotels which have already booked their accommodation at a fixed price. The problem facing proprietors who have reached a firm agreement on prices is how to cope with this proposed increase. They will be able to do so only by reducing the number of employees. In small hotels any action taken in this respect will be only marginal.
What worries me most is the effect this will have on rising unemployment figures on the South Coast in general and in my constituency in particular. The length of the season is that all-important factor to hotels in seaside resorts. At each end of the season there is a time when it is just as wise to close a hotel as it is to keep it open. This proposed increase is the last straw. London and the more popular districts provide employment opportunities for people declared redundant when a hotel shuts for the winter season. In seaside resorts, particularly those on the South Coast, which is now


suffering from its highest unemployment for some years, it is difficult for people put out of work at the end of the season to find other work. Therefore, from a mere cash flow point of view, by introducing this tax the Government are adding to their expenditure because of the increased amount of unemployment. It is a very stupid argument.
It has been said that hotels are experiencing a boom, and I do not deny that this is so with luxury hotels. In London there is a shortage of accommodation. There is a tendency, not by the best hotels but by the middle-class hotels, to make hay while the sun shines and cut down service. The results of this will not be apparent for a number of years, because not many people will complain at the time, but they will not return. Foreign vistors who have been disappointed over hotel service will probably go for their next holiday somewhere on the continent where they are not feeling the effects of reduced service.
The main point has been put so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) that I do not need to go over it. I wish only to stress that these local points are matters of which the President of the Board of Trade ought to take notice, and he should accept our new Clause.

Mr. Noble: I want to impress upon the President of the Board of Trade that there is another side to the picture presented by the Minister of State when moving new Clause 1. The hon. Gentleman said that he had been reading Lex, which gave a glowing account of the fortunes of two of the major and perhaps the best-run hotel groups in the country. I do not doubt that Lex was right. There are big groups of hotels brilliantly run, but such groups select hotels very carefully, to be in the areas where there is the largest number of tourists, and often manage to keep them open for about 11 months of the year. Such groups do not have hotels in my constituency, and probably not in any of the outlying parts of Wales or Cornwall.
My feeling, and I have been consistent about this since the introduction of S.E.T., is that the tax will have quite the opposite effect to that which the Government have always said they were aiming for. It will not help the areas needing

the most help. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) complained about the phraseology of the Minister of State for Scotland in Committee. Although it is true that there is no individual in Scotland—I will not deal with England because the Prime Minister would be included—who is less likely to be believed than the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of State is at least his equal when he is talking about the hotel industry. He has said on a number of occasions, in my constituency and elsewhere, that S.E.T. is positively good for the hotels in the Highlands. He does not have a single supporter or admirer, and that is no wonder.
The whole point is that it should not operate against the interests of people living in country districts, or against service industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has made a good point about service in hotels. In my part of the country there is, and always will be, a very large percentage of service industries. The Government's record is lamentable. It is not only in this industry that they have allegedly helped by taking away more money than they have returned. Exactly the same thing has happened in the Highlands too.
6.15 p.m.
Only this afternoon, answering a Question in the House, the Chancellor said to these benches that we were always trying to oppose the Government in getting the balance of payments right. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade would agree that two of the most important things in getting the balance of payments right are the contributions made by the hotel industry and that made by invisibles. If it were not for them we should be in a mess. Both are particularly hard hit by this tax.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ignore the advice that he has been getting from the Minister of State for Scotland, and perhaps others Ministers in England, and will realise that there is a totally different problem once we move away from places such as Edinburgh, London, Stratford-upon-Avon—the big centres of the tourist industry. The country districts are exceedingly important to the tourist industry, and he must appreciate that something must be done to


help these areas build up the necessary finance to carry out extensions and improvements which the industry demands and which many hotel-keepers want to achieve.

Mr. Pardoe: I should like to be able to divide on one of the new Clauses standing in my name, new Clauses 11 and 12.

Mr. Speaker: I will concede one. Perhaps the hon. Member will choose it later.

Mr. Pardoe: I do not want to speak at any great length to the Amendment that we are debating now, which has to do with S.E.T. and hotels. I am in the fortunate position of representing a part of the country which asked for hotels to be exempted from the tax and got its way. That does not mean that I am not an Oliver Twist asking for more. That is the guise in which I now appear.
The first of the new Clauses that I want to deal with is new Clause 10, dealing with the effect of S.E.T. in respect of lifeguards. This may be thought to be an extremely minor point, and I do not entirely deny it. I do not suppose there are many hon. Gentlemen who have any privately-employed lifeguards in their constituencies. I suspect that I am the only one, unless there are other Members from Cornwall in this position. Although this is a narrow point, it will not cost the Government very much to accept the new Clause. I am sure that they will at least be pleased with that.
Any tax on lifeguards is a tax on safety, and the Government would not wish to go down in history as having taxed safety. Many beaches in Cornwall, particularly on the North Cornish coast, have full-time lifeguards, in many cases two or three working a shift system. Most of the lifeguards are employed by local authorities, which do not have to pay selective employment tax in respect of them. But just a few of the beaches are in the hands of private owners or private entrepreneurs.
It is not often that the beach is actually owned by the person who provides the services, but there are often cases where a beach, such at Watergate Bay, has a café on the edge of it and the café proprietor is responsible not only for providing cups of tea and all the ancillary services but for supervising the

beach. Out of his profit he voluntarily supplies two lifeguards. They are absolutely essential. The North Cornish coast has some fearful seas. Only in the past week we have read accounts of some people most unfortunately being swept away just a little way down the coast from Newquay.
The lifeguards are not there only to save life when people get into trouble, though it is quite easy to get into trouble there. They also ensure that the red flags are flying at times when they think the tide to be dangerous. Therefore, they are there more to provide preventive measures than for life-saving, though they do a great deal of life-saving. There has hardly been an occasion when I have been at a beach in Cornwall in the summer season when I have not seen the lifeguards having to take action to save life.
The tide turns very quickly; within three or four minutes it can go from being quite safe for toddlers to swim to being exceptionally dangerous even for very strong swimmers, and the change is unnoticeable to the untrained eye. The lifeguards are experienced people. Most of them in Cornwall seem to be Australians who have had a great deal of experience in the Australian surf, and they can judge whether the red flags should be flying.
These services should be widely encouraged, and I believe that the Government would want to go on record as encouraging the provision of safety services of this kind. Some local authorities in my constituency and elsewhere in Cornwall have gone out of their way to encourage them. Without giving very much money away—it cannot even be thousands of pounds—the Government could give a lead by accepting this rather narrow Amendment. By doing so they would show that they encouraged the provision of lifeguards on our beaches.
The second new Clause with which I am concerned primarily is new Clause 11, which seeks to exempt restaurants and cafés from the incidence of selective employment tax. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I emphasise the plight of the development areas because it is primarily with development areas that I am concerned. As I have said, we have obtained exemption for hotels in development areas. All the arguments


which we put forward to obtain that exemption, and which swayed the Government to give it, are almost precisely the same as those one can make for exempting restaurants and cafés in those areas, although I would like the exemption to go much wider, across the whole country.
Tourism and the holiday trades are not just hotels and the provision of bedrooms. People go to a place to stay not just because it has a comfortable bedroom with a bath or shower, but because they like all the amenities and facilities that make up its attraction. I make no apology for saying that good food and good wine are an essential part of any good holiday. If I had to choose between a tour of the restaurants with four stars or more in the Michelin Guide, using a camp bed, or a first-class room in a comfortable hotel without the good food, I would opt for the camp bed and the good food.
Why will not the Government accede to my not extravagant request? I have had correspondence on the subject with various Departments, and the latest letter I have received comes from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is comforting to note that the Ministry recognises for once in a while that it is also the Ministry of Food. I was rather surprised to receive a reply about restaurants from that quarter. In the letter, which is dated 4th June, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave his concessions to development areas because he recognised that
… whilst the regional policies were doing a good deal to help industrial expansion the desired response might be much slower in certain development areas where there was not a very strong industrial base, and that in many of these places tourism provides the main source of income and it is the hotel industry that brings money into the areas from outside.
I want to widen that to say that it is the tourist industry in the fullest sense of the phrase that brings money into these areas from outside.
The Parliamentary Secretary explained why the Government do not believe they could make the same concession in development areas or extend the total concession outside development areas and

apply it to cafés and restaurants, and said:
Cafes and restaurants which cater for the local population as well as for tourists were excluded.
I do not see why. Hotels that cater for business people are not excluded if they are in development areas.
The hon. Gentleman said:
It was not considered practicable to distinguish between cafés and restaurants that cater for tourists and those catering for the local population, even if such a distinction were desirable.
But we do not distinguish in the development areas between hotels catering for tourists and those that do not.
The hon. Gentleman added:
It is unlikely that cafés and restaurants would have the effect of attracting people into the region, even if these establishments were better and prices lower than those outside.
I beg to differ. Good cafés and restaurants—if there is any class distinction between the two, I am not sure what it is—with these facilities have a substantial effect in attracting people into a region. If they are better, people will be more attracted into those regions than if they are worse. Therefore, the Government do not have a very strong case in differentiating between concessions for restaurants and cafés and concessions for hotels. Tourism is much more than hotels. We must improve all the facilities, and catering is one of the most important.
New Clause 11 links up to a certain extent with new Clause 12, in which I seek to exempt employees on camping and caravan sites, because it is clear that the extension of camping and caravan sites to self-catering holidays in their broadest aspect means that we must also provide adequate cafés and restaurants. Not all self-catering holidays are quite what they sound. A wife does not usually want to spend the whole day cooking when she is on such a holiday, so cafés and restaurants are essential. There has been a tremendous growth of self-catering holidays, and this is one of the most significant things about British tourism in the past few years.
6.30 p.m.
The South West Economic Planning Council, in its draft strategy for the South-West entitled, "A Region with a


Future", emphasised this strongly, saying,
Nearly one-third of visitors now make use of the newer forms of accommodation represented by camping, caravans, rented villas and flats".
It said, also—this may find an echo in the Minister's mind—
Moreover, the development of tourism represented by the growth in numbers of caravans, chalets, etc., has been in large measure in labour-saving directions".
I accept that it has, but these facilities nevertheless require labour, and labour has to be paid for. I come now to the reasons why I think it important that even camping and caravan sites should have exemption.
The expansion of this part of the holiday trade makes good restaurants and cafes even more important than they would otherwise be, and service in such places is just as essential as it is in a hotel. Restaurants inevitably are labour-intensive. Restaurants in the development areas—though not, unfortunately, outside—are faced with unfair competition from the hotels alongside them because most hotels provide meals for non-residents. This seems to me to be unfair competition, and so it does to the restaurateurs and café proprietors.
Perhaps, as a commercial "plug", I could add that good food, even in spite of the incidence of S.E.T., has improved enormously in Cornwall in recent years, and we can now offer the very best. But our restaurateurs have to offer it on the basis of a short season. They have to provide all the facilities just as hoteliers do, and they have to earn their living in that short season, although many of the facilities, the investment in fixed equipment and so on, have to last throughout the year.
It is often accepted, I am sorry to say—it is sometimes accepted in my own constituency—that camping and caravanning are somehow slightly infra dig, something that, perhaps, the lower classes indulge in. It is sometimes said in my own constituency that it brings undesirable people to Newquay, and I receive many complaints about it. In my view, that is absolute nonsense. There is no class—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating the class consciousness of caravanners and campers.

Mr. Pardoe: I realise that, Mr. Speaker. I am merely trying to impress on the President of the Board of Trade the importance of caravanning and camping in the totality of the holiday trades.
I shall not labour the point. I only observe that, if camping and caravan sites cause social problems—and, to a certain extent, it might be true in some holiday areas—the difficulty can be overcome with an intensification of employment on the sites. There is no doubt that, where sites are adequately supervised, with sufficient staff employed, there are no problems. The problems arise on the unsupervised sites.
I hope, therefore, that the President of the Board of Trade will be prepared to accept all three new Clauses in my name. I fully support new Clause No. 3, although I have a slightly ambivalent attitude towards it as it gives my hoteliers a slight edge competitively over the rest of the country. I am sure that the Clauses would make a tremendous difference to Britain's holiday trades, and I invite the President of the Board of Trade to accept them.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: For those of us who represent seaside constituencies this has been a continuing debate for some years, and for my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and myself it has been a constant constituency problem.
It is worth looking back for a moment to the reason why the tax was introduced at all. It was suggested at the initial stage that it was to improve the tax system by reducing the imbalance between services and manufacturing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating the selective employment tax. We are debating four specific Clauses. The hon. Gentleman must link what he has to say to the Clauses.

Mr. Miscampbell: I shall do that, Mr. Speaker. I accept your reprimand.
I link it straight away with the hotel problem in Blackpool and what was thought at the initial stage would be the result flowing from the imposition on the tax on such places as Blackpool. I sum up this part of my argument in this way. In so far as it was hoped that a constraint on the supply of labour would be


removed, this has certainly not proved to be true in my constituency. By its nature, female labour does not move. Part-time labour cannot move. Even if other industries were available, which they are not, the Board of Trade is not disposed to give industrial development certificates to such places as Blackpool.
Hon. Members are aware of the recent study, published about six months ago by the N.E.D.C., which dealt with service in hotels. It pin-pointed one important factor which is now affecting our hotel trade. Having looked at the cost of services in hotels, it rightly recognised that there was large scope for improvement and for increased productivity. I accept that, but it noted also that the time was coming when customers would display a distinct unwillingness to pay the prices which hoteliers needed to recover their costs.
If there is one thing certain about our hotel trade, it is that it must face international competition, and our best hope is that we provide better standards and hotels than those abroad, not cutting our services or reducing the standards which we offer. Americans—some of our best customers—may well be used to a high standard of comfort in their hotels, but many American hotels do not supply the personal services which are a distinctive feature of the European hotel trade. We shall do ourselves nothing but harm if we cut down on the personal services provided by our hoteliers; to do so would severely handicap our own business in international competition.
It is a notable fact that, over the past few years, London has become one of the great entertainment and restaurant centres of the world. It would be a pity if we lost that advantage because of the imposition of S.E.T. However, it is not particularly of the international hotel in London that I speak today. I have in mind the much smaller establishments in seaside resorts such as my constituency. There is no doubt that, as each successive increase in tax has come, there has been little alternative but to increase prices. Present price levels give no scope to bear the increase in S.E.T.
It is particularly difficult for the small hotel to get rid of staff, for many reasons. It may not be possible to substitute machines for the limited staff employed

in the hotel, and it should not be forgotten that the relationship between a hotelier and his staff may make it very difficult for him to get rid of old servants who have been with him for years.
Moreover, prices are fixed months ahead and brochures are sent out to old and valued clients who come back to the hotels year after year in my constituency. The imposition of the tax at the beginning of the season, when prices have been fixed and brochures printed, is particularly burdensome on the hotelier.
It has already been emphasised that the hotel industry at every level has become an industry of intense international competition, and it cannot be said too strongly that the direct competitor to the small Blackpool hotel is now the man on the Costa Brava. The cost of going on holiday to Spain is comparable to that of going on holiday to Blackpool. Only by providing better services at home can we prevent people from going abroad to spend their money.
The Minister will no doubt be aware that there has recently been discussion, at any rate in the Press, about the possibility of drastic reductions in price for short holidays taken abroad partly out of season, the result of which will be to reduce the cost of the holiday below the return air fare which is now the established minimum for packaged holidays abroad.
If the day should come when it is possible to go to the Costa Brava or Italy for four or five days at a price which is considerably below the return air fare, the competition will be severe and far more people will go abroad. I would expect the Minister would be reluctant to agree to this, although I would deprecate anything that prevented people from going abroad and enjoying themselves at the cheapest possible price.
If I may turn to Amendment No. 32, which I understand may be discussed with the new Clause, I would draw to the Minister's attention the problem which was raised in Committee of the betterment levy. Amendment No. 32 deals with the imposition of other taxes which have been imposed on hotel development or on the construction, extension or improvement of hotels. The pertinent questions on betterment levy—

Mr. Speaker: With respect, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the


Amendment on betterment levy is not selected.

Mr. Miscampbell: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking to keep within order. As I understand, Amendment No. 32 may be discussed with the new Clause, although I appreciate that the Amendment dealing with betterment levy was not chosen. Amendment No. 32 reads:
Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, a scheme under this section for encouraging the construction, extension or improvement of hotels may provide for the repayment by the relevant Minister to persons who have paid taxes in respect of hotels of a proportion of such taxes.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman's argument is logical, we can discuss on this Amendment every tax which a hotelier pays if he happens to be constructing a new hotel.

Mr. Miscampbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do not dissent from that view. I simply seek to say that the betterment levy is a tax which the hotelier has paid and, as such, it should at least be possible briefly to refer to it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Reference must be brief, since I have rejected an Amendment which specifically asks for what the hon. Member is about to ask for.

Mr. Miscampbell: I appreciate the difficulty and will, therefore, be brief.
I hope that a reference will be made before the conclusion of the debate on the new Clause to the question which was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South, on the fourteenth sitting of the Committee, at columns 633–34 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He asked about the possibility of the alleviation of levies which may have been imposed. The Minister will be aware of the undertakings which were given in Committee, and I have no doubt that at the appropriate time he will reply in terms of those undertakings.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I rise briefly to support the new Clause and also what my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) has said. I thought that he put his finger on the point when he said that if the selective employment tax is to make any sense at all it must be selective.

We know that the idea behind it is to reallocate and redistribute labour as between industries in accordance with some clever bit of Socialist planning. Well, what industry have the Government selected as guinea pig in this instance? They have selected the tourist industry. Now, the two main characteristics of the tourist industry from the Government's point of view are, first, that it is a leading dollar earner which the Government should be encouraging and not penalizing, and secondly, that it is very short of labour. There is a present shortfall of 40,000 or 50,000 out of a total labour force of about 250,000 which is about 20 per cent. But instead of trying to channel more labour into this dollar earning industry, the Government deliberately try to force labour out of it.
Sometimes they succeed and sometimes they do not. In instances where hoteliers keep their labour up to strength, in order to recoup themselves, they are forced to increase prices. And here an example was set by British Railway hotels, which put up their prices immediately the tax was imposed, and said so quite clearly on the bills. That is how a State industry reacts to this bit of planning.
The alternative is to dismiss labour ruthlessly and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) said, this is not an easy thing for a hotelier to do with old and tried employees who have been with him for a long time and have no hope of finding jobs in a manufacturing industry.
There is another thing. If employees are dismissed, the result is bound to be a falling off in standards and a falling off in the service offered, and that is something we cannot afford in the hotel industry. There are many hotels in which the standards of service are already none too high, and we cannot afford any further deterioration. In other hotels the standards are high and should be kept high because, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said, that is why people go to hotels. Naturally, the rich foreign tourists, whose custom we want to attract, go for a high standard of service. They like to be well looked after, well fed and well waited on. That may seem deplorable to the Minister, but it is a fact of life.
The Minister probably has very austere standards himself, but who is he


to impose them upon others? And it is not only the rich foreign tourists who come here and from whom we want to extract as much money as we can. There are also the much more modest British tourists who want a fortnight's holiday, who want to enjoy themselves, to put their feet up and not be bothered with all the chores of domestic life. And who can blame them?
All that the Government do by forcing the hotel industry either to put up its prices or else to lower its standards is to drive away and discourage tourists in both the categories I have mentioned, and so to play right into the hands of our chief competitors, the hoteliers of the Costa Brava and foreign hoteliers in general. They are deliberately driving foreigners away from this country and at the same time driving the British holidaymaker abroad.
Finally, in my own constituency the Government have added insult to injury by deliberately, with their eyes wide open, discriminating against the hoteliers of North Ayrshire. While exempting their near neighbours in other parts of Ayrshire and in the neighbouring islands of the Clyde from the effects of S.E.T., they have left the hoteliers of North Ayrshire, of Skelmorlie, Fairlie, West Kilbride, Largs and the other North Ayrshire resorts to bear the full increased burden of the tax.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll said that the Minister of State for Scotland had a way of getting things wrong. I can think of no better instance of this tendency on his part than the explanation he gave as to why the hotels in North Ayrshire, almost alone in Scotland, have not been exempted from S.E.T. He said that they were chiefly patronised by day trippers. That, as he well knows, is simply not true.
Incidentally, it seems to me most extraordinary that no Scottish Minister should be here today. Perhaps it is rather less extraordinary that no Scottish back benchers, are here either. I imagine that like most Government supporters they are elsewhere hanging their heads in shame, and one certainly cannot blame them for that.

Mr. George Younger: There have been so many speeches from this side of the House that I shall add only

a few points to what has already been said. I start by reinforcing what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir Fitzroy Maclean) about the amazing absence of Scottish Ministers from this debate. Surely in this debate, of all debates, they should have made a point of attending.
Scottish Ministers in their lack of sympathy towards people who have problems in regard to S.E.T. have a worse record than any other Department of the Government. They have consistently refused to recognise the problem and have sneered at anybody who has raised it. I record our great disappointment that none is present today to hear these speeches.
I wish to make three main points on this group of new Clauses. I wish, first, to refer to hotels. I give this information to the President of the Board of Trade. My constituency is fortunate enough to be one of the places whose hotels last year were exempted from S.E.T. The results of this exemption can actually be seen. When I was in an hotel in my constituency not very long ago I specifically asked the hotelier, "Has the refund of S.E.T. to you had any effect?"
I am delighted to see that a Scottish Minister has at last arrived. I should like him to note that there has been nobody here from the Scottish Office during this important debate. I hope that the Minister will undertake to read carefully every word that has been said.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw that statement. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has been present during the debate.

Mr. Younger: The Minister is not correct. I am referring to this debate on S.E.T.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting near to a manuscript Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member will come to the Clause that we are now discussing.

Mr. Younger: I share with you, Mr. Speaker, a general distaste for manuscript Amendments, so I will go no further on that point.
I asked this particular hotelier whether he had had any benefit from the refund


of the tax. He said that there had been two benefits. The first was that he had been able to bring down the cost of meals to people staying in the hotel. The second was that he had been able to keep two more people in employment during the winter months whom previously he had to lay off. I put that small example to the President of the Board of Trade, who, I am sure, is trying to do all he can for tourism. It is a typical case and points to the desperate need to take this tax off hoteliers, wherever they are, as quickly as possible. If the information I have given him is of value to him in his argument with the Treasury, I am glad to have been of some service.
To turn to new Clause 12, relating to camping and caravan sites, it is wrong to exclude such sites from the general category of assistance given to hotels. We should try to put the matter right.
Camping and caravan sites are not getting as much help as they should in the way of grants for permanent buildings set up in connection with the sites. The permanent buildings are important to a well-organised caravan site and deserve similar help to that which is given to hotels. If the sites do not get help in this way, it is an additional reason to exempt them from the imposition of S.E.T.
A considerable number of people are employed to carry out the ancillary services connected with camping and caravan sites. The sites contain shops, washing places, restaurants and other forms of services. The overhead costs imposed by S.E.T. put a considerable burden upon those who run these sites and I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at the situation.
Thirdly, I should like to refer to cafes and restaurants. It is the height of absurdity, on the one hand, to exempt a hotel and, on the other, not to exempt a restaurant situated next door. What was thought to be the object of this by whoever thought it up in Whitehall? In my constituency there are numerous examples of hotels with dining-rooms serving meals which are not subject to S.E.T., but a few yards down the street there are restaurants paying S.E.T. on the meals they serve.
The Government may think that it makes sense, but I assure the President of the Board of Trade that there is no

one in the tourist trade in Scotland who thinks that it is anything but the most fantastic anomaly of all; and to say that in respect of selective employment tax is a remarkable statement.
7.0 p.m.
Perhaps I might correct a misapprehension under which a number of hon. Members seem to be labouring. It is not hotels in development areas as such which are exempted from S.E.T., but some hotels in some parts of development areas. Most of Scotland is in a development area, but there are a number of parts of the country where the hotels are still paying full selective employment tax. My hon. Friend referred to his constituency of North Ayrshire, and that is one such part, but there are plenty of others, including the central belt, where hotels, restaurants and cafes still pay S.E.T.
If I may offer another piece of information about hotels and restaurants, a friend of mine runs a restaurant in my constituency, and I asked him recently whether he felt that S.E.T. was a burden having any visible effect on his business. He said, "I will answer your question by saying this", and he showed me his books to prove it. Before the recent increase, S.E.T. had been amounting to as much as half of his net profit. It is a small business, but it is labour-intensive and involves a considerable number of people. He employs as many females as he can because it reduces the cost of S.E.T.
It was plain from his accounts that the payment in S.E.T. that he made one year ago amounted to about half of his net profit. That is a terrible burden. I asked him why he had not put up his prices to make matters easier. He said, "I cannot, because I suffer competition from those who do not pay S.E.T. and who can provide meals at lower prices than I possibly can."
However good the intentions may have been, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take it from me that the effect of S.E.T. gives rise to the most ridiculous anomalies which should not be allowed to continue.
I then asked this same person about his staff. He replied, "What really gets me about the effect of the tax upon my employees is that it was supposed to


change them over from employment in a service industry to work in heavy manufacturing industry. I invite you to interview each one of my staff. If you can find one who would have any chance of working in manufacturing industry, I will give you a free meal for a week."
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take it that the great abhorrence of S.E.T. among those running hotels, camping and caravan sites and restaurants is not merely a political exercise but a matter which is deeply felt by everyone connected with tourism. It is time that the Government acknowledged it and paid more attention to people who have been telling them so for years.

Mr. Gower: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), I want to emphasise the fact that this tax is playing havoc with our tourist industry, though, of course, I have more knowledge of its effect in Wales. In that connection, it is astonishing that there is no Minister from the Welsh Office here to listen to the debate.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) posed an unanswerable case, but I have no doubt that the Minister will attempt to reply to it. One point made by my hon. Friend was that the size of the tax more that outweighs any benefits which have been conceded in the main grants and loans to be made under the Bill.
The other point which I would add to that is that whereas the help to be given by the Bill is concentrated upon the building of new hotels and alterations to existing ones, the burden of S.E.T. will fall sometimes not on the recipients of the aid but upon other persons who are least equipped to endure the tax. The impost will fall most harshly not on those hotels which can benefit by the Bill but possibly on those with smaller resources. In addition, there is no help for hotels which cannot contemplate new building or alterations.
My hon. Friend also emphasised the very large earnings of foreign currency which the hotel trade has been making in recent years. I am astonished at the Government wanting to hit an industry which is doing such an important job for the United Kingdom. After all, it makes

comparatively few demands on imported products, and its raw materials are often its labour and the work which goes into the organisation of a hotel. In most cases, a hotel's imported material is limited to some food and wine. It is the sort of industry which the Government should be doing their utmost to encourage.
Then there is the other valuable saving. The saving in terms of its earnings in foreign currency is extremely valuable, but there is in addition the very useful saving in foreign currency which would be spent by persons who might otherwise go abroad. That, too, is a beneficial result from the growth of our hotel industry, and again one wonders why the Government choose to penalise it in this way.
Then there is the fact that hotels in some parts of the country provide for the needs of industry. My hon. Friend referred obliquely to the provision of accommodation for those in manufacturing industry up and down the country.
Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the fact that this is not business which makes vast demands on labour, although it is a labour-intensive industry employing a quarter of a million people and has a large shortfall in its requirements. It has very difficult technical problems. In many parts of the country, there are problems resulting from an extremely short opening season. The further that one gets from the large hotel in the Metropolis, the more the shortness of the season becomes an important consideration. Then there is the problem that it has to provide labour and services virtually for 24 hours a day.
It has a great many difficult problems, and it is fighting a much more desperate battle in some parts of the country like Scotland, Wales and the Lake District, where the effect of the climate and the shortness of the season is most felt. In London, the Home Counties and possibly a part of the South Coast, those problems are not always so apparent, but in Wales, Scotland and other parts of England, the shortness of the season, the rigours of the climate and many other difficulties place the industry in an almost impossible position.
On top of all the difficulties, the Government clobber the industry and increase


their penal impost this year. The President of the Board of Trade is in an unfortunate position. I recognise that he felt that the Bill would confer useful benefits on the hotel industry, and I appreciate how he must have felt when the Chancellor of the Exchequer undid any good that the Bill can do.
I have spoken to many people in the industry, and they have a mood of disbelief and consternation. After hearing the Minister and his colleagues extolling the merits of the Bill, they could hardly believe it when they discovered that anything conferred by the Bill was to be undone by the addition to the selective employment tax. Tonight, we are giving the Government a chance to undo that evil, because an evil has been done to this industry. If they accept the Amendment at least they can mitigate the evil. I hope that they will at least accept the Amendment referring to hotels and the Amendment referring to restaurants.
Hotels and restaurants have a difficult job. In all conscience, we must make it easier for them. The Government are not doing so. We still need, as the Government have recognised, better and more up-to-date holiday hotel accommodation. We also desperately need better and more up-to-date restaurants. There has been a great improvement in recent years, but in the provinces there are many gaps to be filled. Some advance has been made, but we still need to go a long way. Only in this way can we compete with the tremendous attractions of parts of Spain, Italy and the Mediterranean with all their supreme advantages of colour and climate.
That is what we are fighting against. I believe that the Government should be taking steps to enable our hotel industry to fight this battle with some real chance of success. Our industry can do it, but not unless we give it the opportunity. Let the Government, therefore, accept these useful Amendments.

Mr. William Edwards: I wish to make two brief contributions, the first dealing with selective employment tax and its effect on hotels and the second dealing with caravan sites.
Dealing with S.E.T., I, and I am sure many of my hon. Friends, would urge the Government to accept that the imposition

of this tax generally is not the wisest course, and that it should be excluded within development areas.
Dealing with the specific effects of this tax upon the hotel industry, I have to take a selfish attitude, because it has operated to the great advantage of my constituency. By imposing the tax upon the hotels in the traditional holiday areas of Wales and exempting hotels in Merioneth, they have been given a competitive edge.
I can admire the concern of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) for the hotel industry in general. Mine is a specific concern. Hotels in my constituency have been put at an advantage compared with other hotels in Wales and other parts of Britain. My hoteliers find it easier to employ labour and to offer more competitive terms.
Another interesting effect on the hotel industry in my constituency is that the repayment of S.E.T. has had a marked effect on the net profit of companies. Brewery companies, for the first time, are beginning to show interest in building hotels in my constituency. They are showing interest in one particular project at present. In the past their only interest was in developing hotels in the metropolitan areas. Now they are looking to my constituency, because there is a particular advantage—a margin of profit to be made where no profit could be made in the past. Therefore, I am grateful for small mercies. The repayment of S.E.T. is of great benefit to the hotel industry in my constituency.

Mr. Younger: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most persuasive case that he is arguing is also conclusively proving the contrary, namely, that the hotels that are not getting it back are suffering a grave disadvantage?

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Edwards: Dealing with the position in this country, I do not accept that they are suffering a disadvantage, because most of the hotels that are paying selective employment tax are commercially better placed than the hotels in my constituency. Merioneth has an under-developed hotel industry. Therefore, its development is of great importance. Hotels there have a commercial disadvantage to overcome. This is why


the Government have given them this competitive edge.
Comparing the cost of rooms in hotels in London compared with the cost of rooms in Paris, Rome or any other comparable European capital, we have about the cheapest accommodation in Western Europe. Therefore, it cannot be argued that we are discriminating against our hotel industry in comparison with similar countries. Thank goodness this country is not Spain, although some hon. Gentlemen opposite would perhaps like it to be like Spain. But we are not Spain, and we are competing with countries of a similar kind.
A great deal of nonsense is talked about the hotel industry. It cannot be denied that most hotel companies are doing well. The Opposition cannot escape from the fact that if they look at the profits of the large groups and those of the small groups it will be seen that hotel companies are doing well. Whatever party is in power, some tax or other will be imposed upon the hotel industry. We have had this exchange before, with the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). It cannot be denied by the Opposition that if they were in power they would impose a sales tax of some form or another on the hotel industry—

Mr Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss, on this Amendment, which is on selective employment tax for the hotel industry, all the other kinds of taxation which may occur to a future Chancellor in a weak moment.

Mr. Edwards: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. You are quite right.
I turn now to the Amendments affecting caravan sites. I have expressed certain views about the development of the tourist industry. Investment in caravan sites is a very good form of investment. Nearly every other farmer in my constituency wants a caravan site on his land. Plenty of money is available for developing caravan sites. It is about the most profitable form of investment in the tourist industry that can be made. There is no need for the Government to give any kind of advantage, inducement or tax concession to this particular form of tourist development.
I do not want to see an imbalance being created within the tourist industry in my part of Wales. I do not wish to see the industry going for the short-term gain, the quick return, in its development. The quick return, the short-term gain, is to be made in the development of caravan sites, but, with respect to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), I do not want to see Merioneth, which has a fine tourist industry, develop as many caravan sites as there are in some parts of Cornwall.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Martin Maddan: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards), and to say that the special case which he deployed in favour of the benefits of S.E.T. in Merioneth is not shared by his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) to whom I have sent a note saying that I intended to draw attention to his views about the effects of this tax on the hotel industry on the South Coast, an area with which the hon. Member for Merioneth was making a comparison. The hon. Gentleman said that S.E.T. had a good effect in Merioneth, and no harmful effects on the South Coast and similar areas.
A pleasure which the two hon. Members for Brighton and the hon. Member for Hove have every year is to go to the annual general meeting of the Brighton Hotel, Restaurant, and Guest Houses Association. The members of the association are very brave. They ask all three of us to make a speech. From me, they usually get a speech about the difficult economic circumstances in which they find themselves, and to that they listen with a sort of bored acquiescence. From my former colleague, Sir William Teeling, they were usually treated to some reminiscences about his experiences in hotels in Britain and other parts of the world, and that they always greatly enjoyed.
But then, at the end, comes the hon. Member for Kemptown, who always proclaims his utter opposition to the imposition of S.E.T. on the hotel industry. It always brings the house down, and I have, therefore, drawn his attention to his opportunity tonight to support by his vote on this Clause his frequent expressions of opinion on this issue.
It is not often that I am able to say that the hon. Member for Kemptown is right. His views on various matters may be held to be eccentric, or at least individualistic, but on this one he is right. The present level of the tax underlines, underscores, and increases the weight of every objection which has been raised to it in the past. It is this crippling level to which the tax has been raised which makes the Clause so crucial.
The standard of hotels on the South Coast is higher than in other parts of the country. Perhaps a long traditional history is the reason for that. Nevertheless, they have to compete not only with hotels in other parts of the United Kingdom, but with hotels on the Continent and on the islands off Europe. It is not very far across the Channel to Dieppe, or Rouen, or Deauville. Hotels on the South Coast must compete not only with hotels in those places, but with hotels in Spain, on the Mediterranean, and so on. They have to compete both in price, and in the quality of service they provide.
They have to compete not only for British customers, but for foreign visitors. Strolling along the front at Brighton and Hove, it is remarkable how, in the summer months, one meets substantial numbers of tourists from abroad, and the question we have to ask is how long they will continue to go there. We know that they have been helped recently by devaluation. I must not pursue that, and I shall not, except to say that the effects of that will not last for ever, and, therefore, we come back to the question of the effect of S.E.T. on the service and prices offered in those hotels.
It has been said time and again, but one cannot make a speech without repeating it, that the hotel business is labour-intensive. The high labour costs resulting from S.E.T. mean that it is difficult for hotels to provide the standard of service to which people in other parts of the world are accustomed. It is no good Ministers saying, "Drive all these people into factories", or something of that sort, because, as has rightly been said, that is a forlorn hope. Nor is it any good saying, "Let us have a lot of investment in labour-saving machinery, and that will enable us to dispense with the hotel porter".
That will not help, because when a tourist arrives at an hotel he does not want to be met with a dictaphone to speak into, or something of that sort. He wants personal service in his room, with his meals, with his drinks, and with other things. He wants personal service in the restaurant. He does not want to have to wait while waitresses or waiters are serving every table but his own. S.E.T. at its present level makes it particularly difficult for hotels to provide this kind of service.
The Bill sets out to provide help for certain listed improvements by providing grants for them, but that approach must, of necessity, be inflexible. In a particular hotel the sort of thing that may be needed to make it a better class hotel, and a more satisfactory one, may not be listed among the improvements set out in the Bill. If hotels were relieved of the burden of S.E.T., that inflexibility would be removed, because they would then be able to use their resources to provide what they want without it being necessary to have Government decisions and legislation of this sort. It would be possible for hotels to spend their money where the management thought it would produce the best result, and not have its investment forced into certain channels because of what is laid down in the Bill.
I strongly support the Amendment. I do not see the hon. Member for Kemptown in the Chamber, but I hope to see him in the Division Lobby in support of the Clause.

Mr. David Steel: Like the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards), I represent a part of the country to which the Chancellor made a concession by removing S.E.T. from hotels, following representations which were made to him. I therefore have no general interest in the debate on whether S.E.T. should be removed from hotels throughout the country, but I am interested in new Clause 11, because it seeks to remove S.E.T. from restaurants and cafes throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was right to observe that those who represent those parts of the country where S.E.T. no longer applies to hotels find it most illogical that regardless of the general case for removing S.E.T., the


same step was not taken in respect of cafes and restaurants in those areas, because by not doing that a further anomaly has been created.
One point which was not made by the hon. Member for Ayr, but with which I am sure he will agree, is that new Clause 11 is relevant to Scotland, because it is a general complaint among visitors to Scotland that it is very difficult to get a meal there late in the evening. In parts of Scotland it is regarded as verging on the sinful to eat after 6.30 p.m. Once I received a telephone call from a Member of the House, an English Member, not a member of my party. He telephoned me at about 8 p.m. to say, "My wife and I are passing through your constituency on holiday, and we cannot get a meal". I know a hint when I hear one. To save the reputation of the Scottish tourist industry, I invited him and his wife for a meal. They stayed the weekend. I wish to make it clear that I am not issuing a general invitation. I am anxious to set this situation right, so that others will not follow his example.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask for exemption from S.E.T. for himself.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Steel: That is, unfortunately, correct.
The point is serious and the criticism is justified. I know that in my own part of the country it is extremely difficult to get a meal late in the evening. This is generally true of Scotland as a whole, and may be of other parts of the country. At the same time, we have to sympathise with the reasons for this. Those who run, own or manage restaurants and cafés find it extremely difficult to retain the work force necessary to work later in the evening, supplying meals after 8 o'clock or thereabouts. Often these places are run by large quantities of part-time labour, and if the restaurant were open for meals later in the evening many people employed in them would be exceeding the number of hours permitted for part-timers and would be liable to S.E.T.
This is not a fallacious or superficial argument. There is a real connection between the fact that there is a heavy incidence of this tax—heavier as from next month—in restaurants and cafés and the fact that there is a direct disincentive towards

improving tourist facilities, particularly in Scotland. There is tremendous scope for extending tourism in Britain, particularly Scotland, and I welcome the provisions of the Bill, which will go a long way towards meeting the tourist potential in my part of Scotland. This point about S.E.T. has been generally overlooked, even in the concessions which the Government have hitherto made on S.E.T. Hotels, restaurants and cafés have been largely ignored and I hope that the House will support the new Clause and the Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: At this time of the year Members of Parliament get two types of letter from their constituents, one asking for a reduction in the taxes which have just been imposed or increased and the other the letter that comes from the man who says that since he is paying the tax he might as well have the grant.
I do not believe that it is a good thing for a Government to increase grants. If taxes are not unduly increased, then we do not have to dole out a lot of money. I cannot accept that there is any need for providing grants for hotels and I support the Amendment, because if the burden of S.E.T. was removed from the whole of the hotel industry, we would not have to distribute money by way of grants.
There is no justification for taking tax from development areas in this context as against removing it from other areas which may not be development areas. In the tourist context, London is a development area. London and certain parts of the Midlands—Shakespeare country—attract tourists and are short of hotel accommodation. The same is true of Oxford and Cambridge. These places are not normally development areas, but in so far as they are burdened with the tax, they ask for the grant, provided by the Government at considerable financial and administrative expense.
It would be easier if the tax was removed. We are competing in two directions in the tourist industry. We are trying to bring people here from overseas, and persuade our own people to remain here, thus saving foreign currency. The Government are imposing taxes and restricting the amount of money people can spend abroad, yet they are really encouraging our own people to go overseas for


their holidays. Hotel prices are being pulled down overseas because of what the Government are doing in restricting the currency allowance.
All of the package tour companies are pressurising hotels overseas to reduce the charges so that our own people can afford to pay them, even with the restrictions in force. They are also going abroad earlier. At the same time, the Government are putting up the price of hotel accommodation in this country through S.E.T. Those whom we hoped would visit our country find it much less expensive to go to others. For example, the Germans find it cheaper to go to Spain or Italy than to come here.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Naturally.

Mr. Lewis: Of course, it is normally cheaper. I accept the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but it is cheaper plus because of what the Government are doing. They are creating a situation where potential European visitors are deterred by rising hotel prices. The Government should look at the hotel industry as a whole, instead of dealing with it on the basis of development for non-development areas.
It has been said that new hotels of the "do-it-yourself" type may be built in London. Presumably one tucks oneself up in bed and gets a meal out of a packet. This is because of taxation imposed upon the industry. Financiers see the possibility of removing the labour-intensive character of the industry. If this trend grows and is not applied overseas, there will be even less incentive for people to visit us.
The hotel industry is a labour-intensive industry because it ought to be. People who come to stay want to be looked after. They spend 49 or 50 weeks of the year looking after themselves. A wife does the household chores during the year, and when she gets into an hotel she wants service which can be provided only by people. The tax is a disincentive to employ people. It is imposed on the wrong industry. It is too fierce and the Government, if they really want to help the industry, need not bother about the Bill, but, instead, get rid of S.E.T.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I have been forced to intervene by the remarkable speeches

of hon. Members opposite, particularly the last one. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said that not only because of S.E.T. but because of the Government's £50 holiday restriction, our citizens are forced to go abroad and the number of our visitors is limited. This is entirely contrary to the facts.
Last year, for the first time in our history, I think, there was a net surplus of exchange in our favour, and the figures for this year show a still more remarkable increase: the British Travel Association expects a bumper year. I sometimes wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite read anything more serious than Comic Cuts—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: This may seem a plausible argument, but it is entirely untrue. The reason for our surplus is that we are restricting people in their spending abroad—not on whether they go abroad. That is quite different.

Mr. Atkins: When I mentioned the favourable balance I meant the money spent. I cannot understand that intervention.
I can understand some people criticising S.E.T. because it adds to the expenses of hotel catering, but the development areas which badly need it are helped. Those areas in the South, the Midlands and the South-East, because of the relative shortage of accommodation, for which no one can blame the Government who have been encouraging hotel expansion, are doing better than ever before. One has only to look at the profits and the efforts of hotel corporations from the United States and elsewhere to get into the British market.

Mr. Younger: Can the hon. Gentleman get one thing right? Development areas are not exempted from S.E.T. for hotels. Certain parts of certain areas are, but by no means all.

Mr. Atkins: I must accept that correction. Nevertheless, the Government have been giving considerable assistance to hotels which has never been given before. In those three areas, the South, the South-East and the Midlands, where many of the complaints come from, the industry is doing very well because of the Government's actions.
The remarkable thing is that hon. Members opposite claim that these actions, which have brought excellent results, are producing very bad results. That is quite contrary to the facts. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) seemed to blame S.E.T. for early closing hours in Scotland.

Mr. James Dempsey: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is 20 years since many of us were refused meals in hotels and cafés in Scotland—long before the advent of S.E.T.?

Mr. Atkins: That is my very point.
The hon. Member said that it was almost regarded as sinful to have a late meal in Scotland, and it still is, I think. The fact that the closing hours are so early is largely because these things are dictated by local demand, in Scotland and anywhere else. I agree that it is a bad thing that they should be so early, but I beg hon. Members to have some sense of perspective, and try not to blame everything on S.E.T.

7.45 p.m.

Sir C. Taylor: The Bill is giving hotels something with one hand and taking it away with the other through the Government's increase of S.E.T. The Bill would not be necessary if four things were done to help the industry. First, purchase tax should be removed from the tools of the trade, like linen, carpets and curtains. Second, investment allowances should be restored. This is an exporting industry, and should be treated as a manufacturing industry. Third, planning consent should be easier to obtain and only one Minister responsible for planning consents. Fourth, of course, S.E.T. should be abolished. If these four things had been done, the Bill would not have been necessary.
It may be true that S.E.T. is passed on to hotel customers in many cases, and I am satisfied that it should be, and that hotels should add "S.E.T." to the bottom of their bills, showing that it is not their charge but an additional burden imposed by the Government.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would my hon. Friend note that a foreign visitor who saw S.E.T. mentioned at the bottom of his

hotel bill and asked what it meant was told that it meant "Socialist Enjoyment Tax"?

Sir C. Taylor: And that is not a bad interpretation.
In Committee, the Minister said that S.E.T. did not affect overseas visitors and mentioned, as an example, a couple of Americans who wanted to spend 1,000 dollars. He said that S.E.T. would mean only an additional five dollars on a fortnight's bill. But our hotels and restaurants do not rely solely on American visitors. There have to be some natives around: indeed, the Americans like to see some of the funny English at their hotels.
There is a shortage of trained hotel staff in the whole world. The industry has done everything possible to provide hotel schools for training, but there is still a shortage.
The purpose of S.E.T. was to put a squeeze on the distributive and non-manufacturing industries so that they released staff to make manufactured goods in Birmingham or Manchester, or wherever it might be. It is obvious that the tax will not get the hotel industry to release staff when there is already a world shortage of hotel staff. If an hotel manager finds that he has to cut down his staff, what will happen? The staff will be offered jobs elsewhere in the world where no S.E.T. is payable—

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: The hon. Gentleman has just told the House that there is a shortage of hotel staff all over the world. He need not leave London to find out why: they are paying some of the worst wages in the world. That is one of the chief reasons for the shortage of staff.

Sir C. Taylor: That is not true at all. Wages are governed by the Catering Wages Act, the terms of which were agreed with the unions. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Gentleman has made a most unfortunate observation, and I believe it to be entirely untrue. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a young man will find big opportunities in the hotel industry if he is prepared to work hard and learn his trade—

Mr. Spriggs: Poor wages.

Sir C. Taylor: When, during the sitting of the Standing Committee, S.E.T. was


increased, we were all shocked and horrified. I think that the Minister there was also a little shocked. I do not know whether he was privy to the increase, but in the Standing Committee he referred to S.E.T. as chasing a hare and hoped that none of us would refer to it. My constituents do not regard it as a hare, nor do those in the industry. They regard it as a complete incubus that has been put on them by the Government.
Before the increase was announced, a lot of hotels had already circulated their tariffs for the coming season. Those tariffs are all now outrageously out of date. If anyone says "You have published your tariff of so much a night for a room", it is no good the hotel manager saying, "But the Government have put up S.E.T., so that we have had to put up the price of the room". The customer will tell him, "There is your published tariff, and that is what I am prepared to pay". If S.E.T. is not to be abolished for the hotel industry, as it should be. I hope that this increase will be delayed for a sufficient time to ensure that those who have played fair and published their tariffs shall not be penalised, as they otherwise will be.

Sir Douglas Glover: We are debating in microcosm the reason why the Government have got our affairs into such a mess. The tourist industry is a tragic example. I want to be fair, so I accept what has been said by the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) about the improvement in the tourist industry. There has, of course, been an improvement. If in 1905 we had been debating electricity and saying what had happened since 1900, we could have shown an enormous increase in the development of electricity. The fact is that tourism is probably the world's biggest growth industry. Therefore, it is not a question whether our figures have gone up but how they compare with those of other countries. In this connection, the situation is by no means as happy as the Government and Ministers make out.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Perhaps the hon. Member will look at the figures for France. They show a relative decline. The figures for most other countries show a growth not as great as that of Britain's in recent years, for the simple reason that

for the first time we have moved into surplus.

Sir D. Glover: That we are this year in surplus does not alter the nature of the proposition I wish to put to the House which is that if we were wise we should take a much more positive view of tourism than perhaps any Government have so far taken. If we are right in our view of how society will develop throughout the world, more and more money will be spent each year on tourism than was spent in the past. It is in this light that I believe we are falling behind. It is therefore deplorable that the party opposite should show so little interest in this present debate, and I hope that the public will be made aware of that fact.
The present problem has been largely brought about by the mistaken policies of the Government, and this debate is valuable in showing how the Government have wrongly assessed the situation. During the last five years the Government have raised taxation, and that includes S.E.T., by over 50 per cent. In actual take off, and taking inflation into account, they are collecting about twice as much in taxation as was the case when they came to power. The result is that a great many activities become less and less profitable and show less and less growth. This applies to the tourist industry.
The Government, and it is typical of them, then become seized of the position. They say, "This industry needs help". They then begin to give grants for building or improving hotels, not realising that if they followed a more sensible economic policy they would not need to give capital grants at all. It is only because they have thrown away so much of the profitability of that particular activity that it becomes essential for the State to put something into the pool to make up the deficit and make the activity sufficiently attractive. This applies particularly to the tourist industry, but the Government have made the same mistake in other directions. One of the harsher burdens has been the imposition of S.E.T. on the tourist and catering industries, which are heavy employing industries.
The original, and ludicrous idea was that S.E.T. would get people out of the so-called service industries into manufacturing. But I cannot see someone who


is rather proud of the fact that he is to become a chef suddenly deciding that he will make motor cars. There is a different attitude of mind. We must remember that a great number of those employed in this industry, particularly in the Metropolitan area, are probably of non-British stock.
8.0 p.m.
I am delighted to hear that we are now in surplus, or in balance; but does the Minister of State realise the growth which is taking place elsewhere? I have not been to Spain since 1934, but one of my relatives was there recently, on the Costa del Sol. He told me that on a strip of coastline 40 miles long 691 hotels had been built in the last few years. I am not arguing whether they have State grants, but that is a very strong magnet to people who might come to this country for their holidays or to people to go from this country to that area.
The Government do not take enough account of the very small margin of difference which decides where people might go to spend their holidays. I will give a little pastiche of a family discussing where to go. The wife does not like the sun very much, but she likes scenery. The husband is very fond of the sun and is not much interested in scenery, or he likes night life and is not interested in scenery or sun. There are many things which may influence their decision. If they are to holiday in Great Britain the wife may say, "I think it a good idea to go to Scotland and look at the lovely scenery there. It is four to five years since we went there."
The husband might point out, "We have not been to Wales for a very long time. I heard the other day that we can get special prices in Merionethshire". But then the husband says that it would mean too much driving about and he wants a rest "and anyway it will rain every day; I want to go to Spain or Majorca". The wife has a very powerful pull, but the casting vote is when the husband says, "I was talking in the pub to John Smith. They have been to Scotland, and he told me that with all this S.E.T. the damned service is so ruddy awful that I think we should go to Spain".
That is the kind of thing that can happen if we reduce the services offered in

hotels in this country. The basic reason for many people wanting a holiday is to get away from housework. They want to go somewhere where, instead of having to get up to put the kettle on to make the tea, someone will do it for them. They want to have service, not only first thing in the morning but throughout the day.
Many people will go to good boarding houses where they are looked after as if they were long lost relatives. Even if it pours with rain every day, they will say they have had a good rest. This particularly to the housewife, is a very important part of the holiday. So-called superior brains are thinking about removing all that and having a computerised service whereby people on holiday get nothing but a sort of box and have to make their own beds, brew their own tea and clean their own shoes. That is exactly what people are trying to avoid.

Mr. Costain: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most popular hotels has a notice saying, "Come and stay with us; we will spoil your wife"?

Sir D. Glover: I am sure that is a very good advertisement, apart from the innuendoes which might be attached to it. If people cannot be provided with these facilities here, they will go on package tours. We are trying to persuade as many as possible to stay within these islands for their holidays and to persuade as many visitors as possible to come here. It is jolly good that 1,800,000 come from Western Europe, but that hardly compares with the 3½ million who go to the Costa del Sol. Our performance is not nearly so good in comparison with many nations.
I am not sure that we shall not have to go into this matter in a more dramatic way. We might perhaps have to reconstruct Kenilworth Castle and have a great charade there, showing the Earl of Leicester entertaining Queen Elizabeth I, and charge £1 per head to see it. That might bring many tourists. In North Cornwall in the summer season we might put an embargo on purchase tax so that people, instead of being tempted to go to Jersey because of the difference in taxation, could have the advantages of the short season in Cornwall. I should be out of order if I pursued that, but this matter needs to be looked at more imaginatively than it has been looked at so far.
A man and his wife, having had a discussion and decided to go to the beautiful, lovely, unspoiled heart of Wales and going to an hotel rebuilt by Government grant and not paying S.E.T., may tour about in their car and find when they go to cafes and restaurants that they close too early.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am having great difficulty in discovering how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the new Clause. Perhaps he will help me.

Sir D. Glover: I am merely following many previous speeches. Cafés and restaurants have closed because of the imposition of S.E.T.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These establishments are not covered by the Clause.

Sir D. Glover: They are covered by new Clause 11, which says:
With a view to promoting the development of tourism, where an employer has paid selective employment tax for any contribution week beginning after the coming into force of this Act in respect of a person employed in a café or restaurant the relevant Minister shall make to that employer in respect of that person on that week a payment of an amount equal to the tax paid.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I was not looking at new Clause 11.

Sir D. Glover: I have to apologise to the Chair so often that I welcome an apology from the Chair to me. I therefore decide that honour is satisfied on both sides.
These people, having gone to Merioneth to stay at cheap rates in a grant-built hotel not paying S.E.T., get into their motor car and tour Wales. In the evening they return to their hotel and have their subsidised meal at 6.0 or 6.30 p.m. Then they go out into the country and see sign after sign—"Closed"—because it is not economic for people to remain open because of S.E.T.: they cannot afford to keep their employees on.

Mr. William Edwards: I can assure the House that in Merioneth people would be in no such predicament. The restaurants are flourishing and would be open. There would be no shortage of entertainment. Merioneth is even providing the kind of mediaeval, costume entertainment for which people are prepared

to pay not £1 but 47s. 6d. So successful are these entertainments that there is no problem about S.E.T.

Sir D. Glover: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) has shown the House how prosperous his area is. No doubt the President of the Board of Trade will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said and ensure that Merioneth ceases to be a privileged part of the country receiving benefits at the expense of the general taxpayer. I gather that the hon. Gentleman would be delighted if that happened.

Mr. Edwards: rose—

Sir D. Glover: No; I will not give way again.

Mr. Edwards: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been misquoted. I did not say that I should be delighted if that happened.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use a point of order to enter into a debate.

Sir D. Glover: In discussing the question of S.E.T. and the hotel industry we continually refer to tourism; but it is not all tourism. Perhaps 50 per cent. of it is business. I am not necessarily still referring only to London, Birmingham or Manchester. A wise salesman who is entertaining some executives from, say, Germany or the United States who are here considering a business deal will be only too desirous of taking them to the Lake District and showing them the lovely scenery there. If, on arriving in the Lake District, because of S.E.T. and of hotels cutting down the German, American or Italian business men—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is precluded from discussing this aspect of the matter by the fact that the Bill is entitled "Development of Tourism Bill" and not "Stimulation of Trade Bill".

8.15 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: I am sorry that I have not made the point quite clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A person could come from America on a business project, but his business host in Britain, hoping to sell him a great quantity of goods for export and wishing to give him a good impression of Britain, might say, "We have nearly finished our business. Can I


take you for the weekend to the Lake District and show you some of our lovely scenery?" If on being taken to a restaurant in the Lake District the German or American business man does not get the kind of service that he would get in Germany or in America, and if the contract has not yet been signed, when they return to business he may no longer have as high an opinion of Britain and we may have lost the export order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is very ingenious; it is a very fine point, but he is a little over the line.

Sir D. Glover: I come to the question of tourism and cities. These debates always seem to take place on the assumption that we are on some fine rolling moor in Cornwall, or are up in some glorious heather-covered mountainside in Scotland, or on some sunny beach in Eastbourne, whereas the majority of tourists do not go to Cornwall, Scotland or Eastbourne. Many tourists go to Stratford-on-Avon, but a great number do not.
The biggest tourist attraction is London, and I think that the biggest tourist attraction in London is the Palace of Westminster. Millions come to Britain every year, and millions of Britons come from the provinces to London each year, to look at the attractions of the city. They come also for a holiday. Having had the discussion to which I referred earlier, they decide that this year, instead of going to Spain, they will at last go and look at the Tower of London, the Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey. They decide not to go on a package tour for £50 but to be good citizens and follow the recommendations and exhortations of the Government to spend their money in the United Kingdom; and they decide to come to London.
When they come here they will not find all that number of new hotels. I do not think they will find that the prices are higher than those they would pay anywhere else in Europe, except on a package tour. Constituents and friends who come to London have told me that since the operation of S.E.T. and other imposts brought in by this Government there is a tendency for the standard of service in hotels—not, perhaps, in hotels of the type with which my hon. Friend the Member

for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) is connected, but in small pensions and boarding houses—to fall because they find it increasingly difficult to make a profit. If they find it more and more difficult to make a profit, inevitably they begin to cheesepare thus making it less attractive for people to come.
If that applies to the people from whom we hear regularly, our constituents, it applies probably twice as strongly to those who come to this country and to London from Europe, America and elsewhere. If our own nationals are beginning to complain that the standard of service in the more moderately priced establishments is going down as a result of S.E.T., there must be tens of thousands of foreign tourists who go home after coming here and say to their friends, "I do not know what it is—whether it is their taxation structure or something else—but London is not as good as it was when we were there five years ago, and the service we had in our hotels was much inferior to what we can get on the Continent".
I want the President of the Board of Trade to note that. It is a slow process. It does not happen dramatically. Standards do not go down dramatically, and the complaints of customers returning home are not dramatic. It is a gradual attrition. But it is something of which the right hon. Gentleman ought to take far more note than, apparently, he has taken so far.
No one will grumble about grants and the like being given to the tourist trade for the building, extension or modernisation of hotels, but the Ministry ought to take into account that, even with the growth of tourism, there would not be all these complaints unless the shoe was beginning to pinch, and pinch pretty hard, in the tourist trade. It is no use offering grants for new hotels and for improvements if as a result of our taxation structure there is not an adequate profit, or, more important, there is not the expectation of adequate profit on turnover within the establishment when it is built or improved. Despite the Government's grants, a great many establishments will not be built and a great many improvements will not take place if there is not that expectation. The outside of a factory is important, but what goes on inside is vital. If as a result of Government policy


there is not that adequate return on capital, if there is not an adequate profit for people who are thinking of putting their all into these activities, the grants will not be taken up at the rate and at the speed which the right hon. Gentleman would like to see.
There is no right hon. or hon. Member who does not want the tourist trade to prosper and flourish. It would be churlish to suggest that even the Government do not want that. But they have made some fundamental mistakes. To a degree, they have done right in putting this Bill to the House, but a good deal of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said, would not be necessary if they had taken action on the four fundamental points which he raised.
Let no one run away with the idea that in dealing with this Bill or anything else to do with tourism we have a really great success story to tell. We have a success story only in relation to our own performance, not in relation to the whole world's tourist trade, which, as I said at the outset, is probably the biggest growth industry in the world. I do not want to see this country falling behind in the race.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): It may be convenient if I intervene briefly at this stage. We have had a thorough debate for 2½ hours now, and we are discussing a subject which has been exhaustively debated in Committee on the Bill, in Committee on the Finance Bill, and on many other occasions in the House.

Mr. Blaker: We did not discuss the S.E.T. on any Amendment in Committee. It was hardly mentioned at all.

Mr. Crosland: I read a number of columns this morning of one day's debate in Committee in which there were many references to the S.E.T. I repeat that this is a question which has been continually discussed in the House. For that reason, I am sure, I have not heard new or unfamiliar arguments today, and I doubt that hon. Members opposite will hear any new or unfamiliar arguments from me.
I have listened to a good many speeches—not including the last one from the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—which seemed to me to bear only the most tenuous link with reality, speeches suggesting that the S.E.T. was clobbering

the hotel industry and crippling the tourist trade. Many speeches were made in that vein. It is necessary, therefore, to reiterate one or two facts and give one or two figures, even though they may have been referred to before.
I take, first, the tourist industry as such and the question whether it has been ruined, or is in danger of being ruined, by the S.E.T. There have been many references to the danger that there will be fewer visitors coming to this country and to the possibility of attrition, as someone put it, of the number of visitors. In 1965—I shall not go back 60 years—the number of visitors coming here was about 3·5 million. In 1966, the year in which the S.E.T. was introduced, it rose to 3·9 million. In 1967 in rose again to 4·2 million, another year in which the S.E.T. was increased. Last year it rose to the provisional figure of 4·9 million, and in the first four months of this year the provisional figure suggests that there will be a further increase of 20 per cent.
As regards expenditure as opposed to the number of tourists, I shall not weary the House with figures. They have been published, and they show a comparable increase over the last three years.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ormskirk that one must test our performance against that of other countries, but I put it to the House that, however one looks at the figures and whatever comparisons one makes, international or historical, they all point to the fact that tourism is a thoroughly healthy and rapidly expanding industry in this country, and one which shows not the slightest sign of being crippled or clobbered by the S.E.T.
It is a remarkable fact, to which attention has already been drawn—I do so once again—that in 1968, for the first time since statistics of tourism were first kept, this country had a small positive surplus on tourism account. Certainly, the tourism industry as a whole has not been clobbered by the S.E.T.
Let us next consider whether the hotel industry has been or is being clobbered or crippled by the S.E.T. Reference has already been made to the very successful results published in the past few days by both Trust Houses and Grand Metropolitan Hotels. One or two hon. Members opposite have tried to decry


this by saying that they are two untypical companies, which I do not accept. The results are not exceptional. Almost every quoted company dealing mainly in hotels is also going through a very successful period. The Investors Chronicle last week accurately referred, generally not simply in relation to Trust Houses and Grand Metropolitan, to buoyant reports from the hotel and catering industry. When we are discussing these companies we are discussing not simply, as one or two hon. Gentlemen suggested, a tiny number of luxury hotels in London but companies with widespread hotel interests in different parts of the country, in towns of different sizes—in other words, not an untypical sample.
8.30 p.m.
There is no doubt in my mind from all the evidence we have that the hotel industry generally is prosperous despite the S.E.T. It was suggested by one or two hon. Members that, even though hotels of substantial size are prosperous, very small establishments or boarding houses might be a great deal less prosperous and might be in danger of being badly hit by the S.E.T. There is no firm information to support this view. These are precisely the kind of establishments that gain most from the concession on part-time workers and workers aged over 65. In the resorts of which I have knowledge, they had an extremely successful year in 1968, and they are all looking to an even more successful year in 1969.
All the evidence is that we are having a higher rate of investment in new hotel accommodation than we have had for many years, on the part of both considerable British companies and a number of international companies which show themselves extremely anxious to step up their hotel investment in this country. The reason for this is the highly prosperous state of travel and tourism.
I think there is now no dispute in the House that in general the S.E.T. has been passed on to the customer, and therefore has not reduced profitability. I thought on Second Reading that there might be dispute about this, and I could quote this evening, as I did on Second Reading, from the "Little Neddy" Report which establishes that it has been passed on, but a number of hon. Members opposite have clearly accepted this, including the

hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor). Even the last increase in the S.E.T. in the recent Budget, which aroused a great deal of fury this afternoon, amounts only to another 3d. in the £ compared with an average tourist expenditure per week of about £22 and American tourist expenditure of over £40, so that I cannot believe that the increase will have a significant effect on tourism or the hotel industry.
When we are discussing the new Clauses, particularly No. 3, which is perhaps the central one, we must ask ourselves whether the abolition of the S.E.T. on hotels, when clearly the hotel industry is not declining or sick but is prosperous, would be a sensible way of increasing our balance of payments earnings. We must accept that that is probably the crux of the argument. I do not think that abolition would be a sensible way. It would be very much more expensive than the scheme of grants and loans proposed in the Bill. When public expenditure is under severe scrutiny, and we are constantly be urged by hon. Members opposite to scrutinise it even more severely, it is a highly relevant and central consideration that to abolish the S.E.T. on hotels would be more costly than the grant and loans scheme we propose in the Bill.
Let us leave on one side the question of cost, although I believe it to be a decisive argument, and ask ourselves whether the abolition of the S.E.T. would increase our balance of payments receipts from the hotel industry. I can see no evidence that it would. As I understand it, the assumption of most hon. Members opposite has been that if the S.E.T. were substantially reduced, the reduction would be passed on to the public. There has been a great deal of argument about prices of hotel accommodation in this country compared with other countries. I take it that the assumption is that, just as the tax has been passed on, a reduction in it would also be passed on. If it were, this certainly would not increase our foreign exchange receipts from foreign visitors. There is no evidence that this comparatively small sum in the £ is a deterrent to foreign visitors coming to this country. It is possible that if prices were reduced as a result of the tax falling, we should have the same number of foreign visitors paying less


in foreign exchange I will not argue that point, but I have no evidence that what would be a very small reduction in hotel prices on average would significantly in crease the number of foreign visitors.
I now turn to the argument about import-saving, and British tourists deciding whether to go abroad or stay at home. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Ormskirk on this. One knows how in one's own family this decision becomes an intensely complicated argument which in the end is not settled on considerations of exact cost as between one country and another. I believe that the very large increase in the number of British tourists going abroad is nothing to do with the fivepence, sixpence or sevenpence in the £ in the cost of hotel accommodation but has to do with much deeper factors. For example, cheap air travel is a major factor; the hon. Gentleman himself referred to the huge growth of charter tours and the rest.
I believe that this increase is due to the greater desire now to go to new and particularly sunny countries. The sort of holiday previously confined to the upper and middle classes has now become general throughout the population. In the light of these underlying factors, I do not believe that a change in the price of British hotel accommodation of a few pence in the £ would make a significant difference to the number of British tourists going abroad. On the assumption, in particular, that a reduction in the S.E.T. would be passed on, I do not see how it could be argued that that would increase our foreign exchange earnings.
What we want to do—and I think that this is not in dispute—is to solve the critical problem that if the number of tourists coming here is to grow in the next two to five years as rapidly as in the last few years we must have more hotel accommodation of the right sort. In other words, what we have to get is an increase in investment and suitable capacity. I do not see how this would be achieved by taking the S.E.T. off the hotel industry on the assumption that the reduction would, generally speaking, be passed on. Even if some of it were passed on and some were retained for increased profitability, increased cash flow, and so forth, that would not be nearly so economical a way of increasing investment as Government grants, which

are operated solely on the basis of new investment of the kind we want. The Government grant system is the most efficient and economical method of achieving the desired end, which is a significant increase in hotel capacity of the right kind.
I shall not go into more general points on the S.E.T., for I should be out of order. I will refer only to certain points made about it. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said that we could legitimately take the S.E.T. off the hotel industry because of that industry's special contribution to our foreign exchange position. But I must repeat what has often been said in this House—that, although it makes an important contribution, only about 10 per cent. of our hotel rooms are occupied by foreign visitors, whereas the proportion of manufacturing output on average going to exports is over 30 per cent.
It is not correct to say that the hotel industry is the only service paying the S.E.T. and making a considerable contribution to our balance of payments. On the contrary, if one made this argument for hotels one would have to make it for insurance and export houses. Indeed, a strong and vocal group claim it for them. It is wrong to say that one could make such a concession for hotels and hold the line there.

Mr. Emery: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that the hotel industry was the only service making such a contribution. I asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would tell us which other service industry contributes more.

Mr. Crosland: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. But I think I did, as it happens, inadvertently answer his question by referring to insurance and export houses, which claim to be in the same position. I do not think that the balance of payments argument alone justifies the exemption of the hotel and catering industry from the S.E.T.
Another point about which there has been discussion is that of a possible shortage of labour and a possible decline in the service. I do not think that I agree with the one or two rather gloomy hon. Members who said that foreign visitors have noticed a general decline. That has


not been my experience generally. But it is important to say clearly that the hotel industry cannot be exempt from the pressure which the S.E.T. exerts on it to increase productivity; and I am sorry that no one, as far as I know, has mentioned this point throughout the debate. It is important to remember that in the "Little Neddy" report Service in Hotels there is considerable discussion of this matter on pages 16, 17 and 18. It says:
This study of hotel and catering units suggested that the level of productivity in the industry could be raised by giving greater attention to such factors as …
A list of factors follows. It is clear from this report that it could be not merely raised but raised very considerably. This aspect of the problem has been rather neglected in the debate today.
I will mention briefly the new Clauses and the Amendment. New Clause 3 I have dealt with in the whole of my argument so far. On new Clause 10, everybody has sympathy with what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said, and took a great deal of interest in his argument. A wide variety of services is provided by voluntary or non-profit-making bodies which can be said to be useful to the community. Examples of such services for which a refund of the S.E.T. has often been suggested range from nursing homes and private schools to the motoring organisations and registered driving instructors.
It would be impracticable and unacceptable to try to select particular services or organisations for refund. To do so for one would be bound to lead to accusations of unfair treatment. I have looked at this question on many occasions and, as the House will know, have decided that it is not possible to go beyond the concession to registered charities, a recognised and objective criterion for special treatment.
The House will not be surprised that I shall ask it to reject new Clauses 11 and 12. If we are not prepared to make an S.E.T. concession for hotels, it would be illogical to go on and make one for cafés and restaurants, and camping and caravan sites. For the same general reasons I must ask the House to reject these new Clauses.

Mr. Jopling: The Minister says that it would not be reasonable to exempt

cafés and restaurants as he has refused to exempt hotels. Does not it therefore follow that where S.E.T. is refunded to hotels in certain development areas, restaurants and cafés in those areas should also have S.E.T. refunded? Surely that is an irrefutable argument?

Mr. Crosland: I do not find the argument irrefutable, and I do not think it follows from anything I said. On another occasion we could no doubt argue the development area point, but it is not covered in the new Clauses and the Amendment which we are considering.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) can hardly have intended Amendment No. 32 to be taken seriously, and I do not know whether to spend a great deal of time on it. It is obviously wholly unacceptable as it stands. It will permit the refund of any tax. No limit is suggested to the time over which such taxes may have been paid to qualify for refund. No limit is set to the time for which refunds may be made in the future, and no limit is set on the proportion which the Minister should refund. The Amendment is so vague as to be meaningless, and I ask the House to reject it.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: The Amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on which I have not previously risen to catch your eye, is concerned with a matter on which I have given notice to the Minister, and that is the question of a reply on the whole position of betterment levy. It is to that that the Amendment was adduced. It may be that it would be better for me to develop this by way of argument, if the Chair would allow the leave of the House to the Minister to deal with this point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. Mr. Crosland.

Mr. Crosland: As I said, the Amendment goes far wider than the question of betterment levy, and would give the Minister power to refund any tax of any kind. That is no fault of the hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Blaker: The Minister may be aware that his hon. Friend the Minister of State said several times in Committee that a full explanation would be given on Report or Third Reading. His hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for


Scotland said that it would be given on Report. This is the only opportunity for that explanation to be given.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Crosland: That matter does not arise on this Amendment. The Amendment covers all taxes and is not an Amendment on the betterment levy. I do not feel that this particular debate is the right one to deal with that matter.
Since we have already had a long debate, I conclude by saying that I am surprised by the continued agitation of the Opposition, and the continued statements which have been made by the industry, on this subject. The arguments used about the effect of the S.E.T. simply are not borne out in any way by the facts as they apply either to tourism or to the hotel industry. Indeed, the complaints that come from the industry sometimes suggest, although only as to certain sections of it, a lack of self-confidence, which, in practice, I believe not to be typical.
The Amendments proposed are inconsistent with all we hear from the Opposition on the subject of public expenditure, and I am certain that they would be less efficient than the methods which we propose for bringing about an increase in capital investment in hotels, which we should all like to see.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I do not intend to detain the House long in reply to what the Minister has said. I do not suggest that Amendment No. 32 is directed specifically to betterment levy, but it is a subject within the ambit of the Amendment and is a matter which was specifically raised and dealt with in Committee, with an undertaking that it would be dealt with on Report.
I quote the exact position. In Committee on 6th May, in a debate on this subject, which I then opened, I said this:
I think that this is an appropriate time for the Minister to tell us whether, if one applies for a loan under this Clause, any betterment levy will have to be met in respect of development occasioned under the terms of this provision. If we find that people are to be encouraged to go in for substantial loan schemes and then find that, either in the provision of the new hotel or by altering or extending the character, they are to be liable for betterment levy, we are really removing all the benefit which we are seeking to give by the encouragement of the Government policy.

I went on to develop that argument and to point out the various dangers inherent in it.
The Minister, in reply, referring to the developer, said, in column 625:
If he had to pay, it would be 40 per cent. of the increase in the land value. Even this would be subject to a number of allowances. One must look at these as separate matters.
Then come the important words:
Anybody who chooses to take a grant or a loan must not believe that the benefit he gets will be thereby extinguished. That is simply not the case.
I had some doubts as to the accuracy of that statement, but I realised that I was asking the Minister to give a reply "off the cuff". I intervened to say that the sum of money might well nullify the whole of the grant provision which is made. I said that it would not be fair to ask the Minister to go into great detail on it then and there, and I said that we would press the Minister on Report.
The Minister replied, in column 626:
If the Committee wishes it, certainly I would make sure that something was said on Report and Third Reading. I would ask the Committee to recognise that these are distinct matters.
He went on to say something that is of the greatest importance to the industry:
I do not believe that members of the Committee would wish to lead hoteliers who might be interested in the provisions of the Bill into believing that, in some way, the separate provisions of the Land Commission Act represent an impediment to taking full advantage of what is offered here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 6th May, 1969; c. 620–6.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) made some contributions, and we were given a further undertaking on the following day by the Under-Secretary for Scotland that the matter would be dealt with on Report.
I personally have not spoken on the S.E.T. debate. I will take up a few of the points which have been made and try to reply to them. In terms of the provisions of the Bill, the question of the betterment levy is of far greater importance than S.E.T. If one is to consider taking a substantial loan under Clause 13, especially to renovate and make substantial improvements upon existing buildings which may be caught by the betterment levy with a substantial tax element in it, with the difficulties of obtaining the loan at a reasonable interest.


I suggest that the position will be that a great deal more will be lost than is gained. I believe that the true incentives under the Bill, both loan and grant, will be removed unless some provision is made in the sort of way set out in Amendment No. 32.
We did not draft that Amendment with any great professional ability. We put it down to ensure that in this debate the Government would take this opportunity, or undertake to give us another opportunity on or before Third Reading, to let us hear the full and exact position about S.E.T.
Supposing that someone was to develop a small new hotel and obtain a 20 per cent. grant on a building of £50,000—in other words, one-fifth of that, which is £10,000. Suppose, then, that he got a 40 per cent. loan—another two-fifths, which is £20,000. If he then put up £20,000 towards it, he might find himself faced with a 40 per cent. tax on the total sum of £50,000 which he has spent in securing the land on which he is to develop. He may find that the whole of the provisions that he has worked out will be lost because he will be unable to meet the heavy incursion of the iniquitous betterment levy.
That is the difficulty which I foresee unless there is a method of ensuring that, in making the grant and the loan, account will be taken of the existence of the liability for betterment levy and the Government will seek to undertake by some means to offset the disadvantages thereby incurred.
This is a matter upon which I felt that the Minister of State had not the authority nor perhaps the information to be able to reply when we dealt with it in Committee. It is of the greatest importance to the industry, which may have recognised that it was unlikely to get very much change out of the Minister on S.E.T. in this debate, but which will not have guessed that it may not get a fair deal in the future in considering the betterment levy position. We recognise that the Minister is sincere in wishing to give an incentive to build hotels, but we have very little time.
I want to refer to that part of the S.E.T. debate because my approach is not a financial one. It arises solely from

what I like to think is a practical knowledge of the working of the industry. I am satisfied that S.E.T. harms the position of labour. It harms recruitment into the industry and makes it an industry which tends to be full of part-timers who are employed with a view to avoiding S.E.T.
People who run boarding-houses go to great lengths to use part-time employees rather than having to employ the young people who should be coming into the industry. They are building up with old people. We are losing valuable labour instead of taking the opportunity to bring in and train labour. It is to our labour training and employment that S.E.T. is of the greatest harm.
I do not believe that the President of the Board of Trade will save many "bucks". There will be no decrease in the number of overseas visitors staying at the Savoy or the Woburn because of S.E.T. That is not the argument, but it will stop the growth of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain)has pointed out that as well as selective employment tax there are pensions and superannuation going on as part of the cost of labour which has to be employed.
This is a substantial burden upon an industry which should be seeking retraining in every possible way. We need schemes for the improvement of those engaged in the catering industry—chefs, cooks, waiters, the whole of the staff. We want to encourage them to go into what we call an industry. It is no less an industry than any other form of manufacturing. There is no reason to draw a distinction.
This is not a service; this is the development of an industry and of people who have acute skills and training in the catering industry no less than others may have in the manufacture of steel or other products which they work with their hands. Therefore, we say that it is wrong to draw a distinction between this industry and others. It is wrong to place impediments in the way of development and the training of labour.
We have had a full debate, but I am anxious to ensure that, in accordance with the undertaking which has been given, the President of the Board of Trade or the Minister of State will give


us a clear reply about the betterment levy. If he says that he would like another 24 hours' notice, I am sure that we will be agreeable. But let us have this absolutely clear what industry will have to meet if they get its grant and what will be the position about the loans, so that it may understand exactly the burden, if any, which it will have to cover.

Mr. William Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman has referred to undertakings given in Committee. We are not responsible for the selection of Amendments. Had Amendment No. 158 been selected, there would have been an opportunity to reply as fully as the hon. Gentleman had in mind. This not being the position, we will endeavour to meet his wishes on Third Reading.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I am glad that I have been able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this debate, which is of such great interest to so many people in South Kensington.
We heard from the President of the Board of Trade an able and extremely damaging account of all the arguments which the industry most dreads to hear. I am glad of this brief opportunity of explaining why I disagree with him.
Other hon. Members, besides the right hon. Gentleman, have expressed the view that hotels and restaurants in this country are doing extremely well. Therefore, I suppose they feel they can well afford to pay selective employment tax. Some hotels and restaurants are doing extremely well—including those belonging to the quoted companies which have managed, over a period of years, to collect the key sites in centres where visitors are obliged to pay whatever charges they choose to make. But it is not enough to judge the prosperity of the industry by observation of the prosperity of hotels and restaurants which are in a physical position to pass on higher prices.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not consider that this unhealthy and patchy prosperity is a sign that all is well for the long term with the hotels and catering industry. Stretching a point on prices is not good policy in any form of industry. All hon. Members know that a man who finds at the end of his meal that he has been charged far more than

he expected may not kick up a fuss at once or refuse to pay his bill, but he will not come back. We have the same situation on a larger scale. If people with international interests organise a conference in London and find that it has cost them more than they have paid when they have organised similar conferences in other centres they will strike London off their list for the future.
9.0 p.m.
We must consider the long-term interest, and not merely look at what is happening in the industry from day to day. One thing which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention was the sharp drop in employment in total in hotels and catering. In June, 1965, 611,000 people were employed in this industry. In June, 1968, that figure had dropped to 571,000, and no doubt as a result of the sharp increase in S.E.T. in this year's Budget that drop will accelerate.
We all welcome the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman, which seem to suggest that there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of visitors to this country since 1966. That is remarkable, but how long will this increase persist if it is accompanied by a corresponding drop in the number of people available—40,000 fewer—to service this very much larger number of visitors? And how many of the 40,000 who have been forced out of the hotel and catering industry since the imposition of S.E.T. are still unemployed? I believe that it is a disproportionately high number.
What this industry desperately needs is a long period of stable prosperity, possibly for the first time in this country. Some hon. Members may feel that wages in hotels and catering are not too low. I do not like to get dragged into a dispute of that kind, but there is no doubt that employers would be glad to pay higher wages if they could. But if they are obliged to pay more than £2 a week per head to the Exchequer in S.E.T., it is bound to make it more and more difficult for them to offer the sort of wages they would like to pay.
If they cannot pay adequate wages, they will be troubled as far ahead as they can see by the old bugbear of the industry, which is the rapid turn-round of labour. It is not possible to organise


training in a modern context, as understood in personnel management today, in an industry where there is such a rapid turn-round of weekly-paid employees. And this applies just as much to junior management. If anybody has had experience, as I have, of advertising jobs in the hotel and catering industry to which junior and middle management are expected to reply, he can confirm my experience, which is that a large number of people will write in, in many cases out of curiosity. If they are asked to give the history of their previous employment, they will not attempt to disguise the fact—indeed they might make a point of it—that in the previous five to 10 years they have had five to 10 jobs. They quote an employment record like that because they think that breadth of experience will recommend them.
But in a modern industry, which is what we hope the hotel and catering industry will become, we want evidence of stability, evidence that there has been continuity of employment and loyalty. We shall never have that while this industry is regarded as a depressed industry from the point of view of remuneration.
Investment in new hotels is going on well, but if the tourist industry is exploding, as we believe it is, can we have confidence that we are investing sufficient, and providing enough accommodation in new hotels? I am afraid that the new hotels built in the late 'sixties will, in ten or twenty years, be regarded as shoddy affairs. They will be called the "S.E.T." hotels.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to discover how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the Clause and the Amendment.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: It is a question of the profitability of the industry.
The right hon. Gentleman advanced the argument that profits were adequate, and that the hotels could afford to pay S.E.T. I feel, and I am sure many well-informed judges of what is happening in the industry will know, that a long period of prosperity is needed to make up for the generations of inadequate investment which are the background to this industry, and which have brought it into the unhappy state in which it is today.
We have to consider the modernisation of existing hotels as well. Although there are signs which visitors may notice of modernisation in the way of improved facilities, improved decor, and so on, if they could see through the swing doors, and find out what is happening in the kitchens, and see the conditions under which the staff work, they would realise that this industry is starved of capital. The Government should do much more about the industry's financial position. It is not enough to offer little bits of grant here and there, and to take away millions of pounds in S.E.T., as they are doing. If they care about this industry, the Government must give back to the hotels and caterers their own money to spend as they know best.

Mr. Emery: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, the President of the Board of Trade said at the start that he would not say anything new, and he was right. His argument was that S.E.T. is all right in the hotels because it is handed on and the customer is clobbered. He did not comment on the labour side, or on the speeches about the way that S.E.T. is forcing a shortening of the season, because it is at that time of marginal decisions about elongating the season that S.E.T. is an important factor. The Minister of State has taken part in conferences aimed at getting a longer season; yet no answer was given to this.
Nor did the right hon. Gentleman deal with any of the major points raised by Scottish hon. Members on this side, which was a slight on their extensive arguments. He entirely neglected the arguments about caravan sites, and dismissed the anomaly about restaurants in development areas where S.E.T. is rebated. This is the cavalier way in which he dealt with the debate.
Our basic position was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—that there would be no need for aid under the Bill if the Government had not sucked so much from tourism. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that our argument is wrong because we want a cut in public expenditure. But part of our argument is that we could do this with tourism if the money which it was making stayed in the industry instead of being taken out


by S.E.T. The essence of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that we are wrong, but he neglected to say that the hotels, boarding-houses and regional travel associations are also wrong.
Even the South-West Regional Economic Development Council, one of the right hon. Gentleman's own organisations, which has seen him about this, is wrong. Apparently, the only person in the House who is right is the Minister! That is typical of this Government's approach on

this type of issue. I urge my hon. Friends to divide on this matter.

Mr. John McCann (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 152.

Division No. 280.]
AYES
[9.10 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fowler, Gerry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Albu, Austen
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mayhew, Christopher


Alldritt, Walter
Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Gardner, Tony
Mendelson, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ginsburg, David
Millan, Bruce


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Moonman, Eric


Beaney, Alan
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland


Binns, John
Hamling, William
Murray, Albert


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William
Neal, Harold


Blackburn, F.
Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Norwood, Christopher


Booth, Albert
Hazell, Bert
Ogden, Eric


Boyden, James
Henig, Stanley
O'Malley, Brian


Bradley, Tom
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oram, Albert E.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oswald, Thomas


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Huckfield, Leslie
Padley, Walter


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John
Pentland, Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; spenb'gh)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Coe, Denis
Janner, Sir Barnett
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Probert, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rankin, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Kelley, Richard
Robertson, John (Paisley)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kenyon, Clifford
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Roebuck, Roy


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rowlands, E.


Dickens, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ryan, John


Dobson, Ray
Lomas, Kenneth
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Doig, Peter
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Driberg, Tom
Luard, Evan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McBride, Neil
Slater, Joseph




Small, William


Eadie, Alex
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Edelman, Maurice
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Macdonald, A. H.
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Symonds, J. B.


Ellis, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Taverne, Dick


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thornton, Ernest


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackie, John
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Tomney, Frank


Finch, Harold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Tuck, Raphael


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Varley, Eric G.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Manuel, Archie
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foley, Maurice
Marquand, David
Wallace, George




Watkins, David (Consett)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Woof, Robert


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)



Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


White, Mrs. Eirene
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Whitlock, William
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Ernest G. Perry


Wilkins, W. A.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grieve, Percy
Pardoe, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Astor, John
Gurden, Harold
Peel, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Percival, Ian


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Peyton, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pounder, Rafton


Bell, Ronald
Hawkins, Paul
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Francis


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hiley, Joseph
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Blaker, Peter
Hill, J. E. B.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Holland, Philip
Ridsdale, Julian


Braine, Bernard
Hordern, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brewis, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Royle, Anthony


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Chataway, Christopher
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharples, Richard


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clark, Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Silvester, Frederick


Cooper-Key, Sir Neil
Kirk, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Corfield, F. V.
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Speed, Keith


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stodart, Anthony


Currie, G. B. H.
Longden, Gilbert
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Dance, James
Lubbock, Eric
Summers, Sir Spencer


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dean, Paul
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McMaster, Stanley
Temple, John M.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Doughty, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Waddington, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maginnis, John E.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maude, Angus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Walters, Dennis


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Ward, Dame Irene


Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Farr, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wiggin, A. W.


Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Foster, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gibson-Watt, David
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Woodnutt, Mark




Wylie, N. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Goodhart, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Goodhew, Victor
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Nott, John
Mr. Jasper More and


Grant, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Page, Graham (Crosby)

Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 206.

Division No. 281.]
AYES
[9.21 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Allison, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Braine, Bernard
Currie, G. B. H.


Astor, John
Brewis, John
Dance, James


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Buck, Antony (Colchester)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Dean, Paul


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Bell, Ronald
Chataway, Christopher
Doughty Charles


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eden, Sir John


Biffen, John
Clark, Henry
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Blaker, Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Emery, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Costain, A. P.
Errington, Sir Eric




Eyre, Reginald
Lane, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian


Fortescue, Tim
Lubbock, Eric
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Foster, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Gibson-Watt, David
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McMaster, Stanley
Royle, Anthony


Glover, Sir Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Scott, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Maddan, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whiby)


Grant, Anthony
Maude, Angus
Silvester, Frederick


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Speed, Keith


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Miscampbell, Norman
Stodart, Anthony


Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. S. M.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monro, Hector
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
More, Jasper
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Temple, John M.


Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Monro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Higgins, Terence L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hiley, Joseph
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Waddington, David


Hill, J. E. B.
Nott, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Holland, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Walters, Dennis


Hordern, Peter
Pardoe, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William




Wiggin, A. W.


Hunt, John
Peel, John
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Peyton, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodnutt, Mark


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pounder, Rafton
Wylie, N. R.


Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Younger, Hn. George


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)



Kirk, Peter
Pym, Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Timothy Kitson and


Lambton, Viscount
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Albu, Austen
Dickens, James
Hooley, Frank


Alldritt, Walter
Dobson, Ray
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Driberg, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hunter, Adam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Hynd, John


Barnett, Joel
Eadie, Alex
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Beaney, Alan
Edelman, Maurice
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Binns, John
Ellis, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bishop, E. S.
Ennals, David
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Finch, Harold
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Boyden, James
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Kelley, Richard


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kenyon, Clifford


Buchan, Norman
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Foley, Maurice
Lawson, George


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fowler, Gerry
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lester, Miss Joan


Cant, R. B.
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carmichael, Neil
Gardner, Tony
Lomas, Kenneth


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Ginsburg, David
Loughlin, Charles


Chapman, Donald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Luard, Evan


Coe, Denis
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Coleman, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Concannon, J. D.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McBride, Neil


Conlan, Bernard
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McCann, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacColl, James


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Macdonald, A. H.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hamling, William
McGuire, Michael


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hannan, William
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)




de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Delargy, Hugh
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John


Dempsey, James
Hazell, Bert
Maclennan, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Henig, Stanley
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)







McNamara, J. Kevin
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Symonds, J. B.


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pentland, Norman
Taverne, Dick


Manuel, Archie
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Thornton, Ernest


Marks, Kenneth
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Tinn, James


Marquand, David
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Tomney, Frank


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Tuck, Raphael


Mayhew, Christopher
Probert, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rankin, John
Varley, Eric G.


Mendelson, John
Rees, Merlyn
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Millan, Bruce
Richard, Ivor
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wallace, George


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weitzman, David


Moonman, Eric
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Wellbeloved, James


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roebuck, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene


Moyle, Roland
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wilkins, W. A.


Murray, Albert
Rowlands, E.
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Neal, Harold
Ryan, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Newens, Stan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Norwood, Christopher
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Oakes, Gordon
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ogden, Eric
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Oram, Albert E.
Slater, Joseph
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)




Woof, Robert


Orme, Stanley
Small, William



Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and


Padley, Walter
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. Ernest G. Perry.


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I promised a Division on new Clause 11, but that will come at its proper place on the Notice Paper.

New Clause 4

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

(1) Each Tourist Board shall establish committees to advise it in relation to the proper discharge of the functions and powers conferred upon it by this Act.

(2) Such committees shall include persons with knowledge of the tourist industry and the members of each committee viewed collectively shall be widely representative of those aspects of the tourist industry with which the particular committee is concerned.

(3) Persons may be appointed to serve on such committees without remuneration, but the Tourist Board may reimburse to such persons their expenses properly incurred.—[Mr. Blaker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Blaker: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this new Clause we shall take the following group of further Amendments, all of which are linked with the same subject:
No. 4, in Clause 1, page 1, line 12, leave out 'five' and insert 'sixteen'.
No. 5, in page 1, line 13, after 'Trade', insert—
'of whom six shall be designated by him to be and act, with the Chairman, as the Executive Committee'.

No. 6, in page 1, line 13, after 'Trade' insert—
'one of whom shall be appointed by the Board of Trade after consultation with the Chairman of the Countryside Commission'.
No. 9, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'six' and insert 'sixteen'.
No. 10, in page 1, line 19, after 'Trade', insert—
'of whom six shall be designated by him to be and act, with the Chairman, as the Executive Committee'.
No. 11, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'six' and insert 'sixteen'.
No. 12, in page 2, line 2, after 'Scotland', insert—
'of whom six shall be designated by him to be and act, with the Chairman, as the Executive Committee'.
No. 13, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'six' and insert 'sixteen'.
No. 14, in page 2, line 4, at end insert—
The Chairman of each Tourist Board shall be a person having industrial or commercial experience and before appointing members of each Tourist Board the relevant Minister shall consult such interests concerned with travel and holidays in Great Britain as appear to him appropriate in order that so far as is practicable all interests so concerned shall be adequately represented.
No. 20, in Clause 2, page 2, line 27, at end insert—
(c) in order the better to carry out the functions in paragraphs (a) and (b) in this subsection, to encourage co-operation between itself and other persons or organisations


engaged in similar functions, for which purpose it may set up or join in setting up such committees and consult with such other persons and organisations as it thinks fit.
No. 21, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
(e) to provide financial or other assistance to any regional association which is or may be set up in England, Scotland or Wales to encourage the provision and improvement of tourist amenities and facilities or to carry on in or in relation to its region any activity which the Board has power to carry on under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection;.
Government Amendment No. 24, in Clause 2, page 3, line 11, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) In discharging their functions under this section the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board shall have regard to the desirability of fostering and, in appropriate cases, co-operating with organisations discharging functions corresponding to those of the Boards in relation to particular areas within the countries for which the Boards are respectively responsible; and, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, each of those Boards shall have power to provide such organisations with financial or other assistance.
(4) In discharging its functions under this section each Tourist Board shall have regard of the desirability to the desirability of undertaking appropriate consultation with persons and organisations, including those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, who have knowledge of, or are interested in, any matters affecting the discharge of those functions.
No. 26, in page 3, line 16, at end insert:
(4) In discharging their functions under this section the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board shall have regard to the desirability of fostering and, in appropriate cases, co-operating with oganisations discharging functions corresponding to those of the Boards in relation to particular areas within the countries for which the Boards are respectively responsible; and, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this section, each of those Boards shall have power to provide such organisations with financial or other assistance.
(5) In discharging its functions under this section each Tourist Board shall have regard to the desirability of undertaking appropriate consultation with persons and organisations, including those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, who have knowledge of, or are interested in, any matters affecting the discharge of those functions.
No. 78, in Schedule 1, page 18, line 40, at end insert:
'save that the members of each Board who are not members of its Executive Committee shall be reimbursed their reasonable expenses incurred on the business of the Board but the Board shall not pay them salaries or fees'.

No. 79, in page 18, line 41, after 'members', insert 'of its Executive Committee'.
No. 80, in page 19, line 27, at end insert:
12. The Board may reimburse to any member of a committee set up by it, whether separately or jointly with any other organisation, his reasonable expenses incurred on the business of that committee.

Mr. Blaker: First, Mr. Speaker, may I raise with you two points of order regarding how we should proceed with this group of Amendments?
When we reach that point, may we ask for a separate vote on Amendment No. 4, if required?
Second, I refer to the decision which you gave in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) at the beginning of our proceedings today. My right hon. Friend asked you to consider Amendment No. 24, pointing out that that Amendment began by proposing the deletion of subsection (3) of Clause 2, which relates to the promotion of Scotland and Wales overseas, and suggested that it might be taken separately from the remainder of Amendment No. 24.
I wonder whether it was your intention that there should be a separate debate on the first four words of that Amendment relating to Scotland and Wales, and a separate vote, if necessary, in which case I should not refer to that part of Amendment No. 24 in my remarks at this stage, since the debate on that matter would, presumably, be left to a later stage.

Mr. Speaker: I should wish to do anything which would prevent an hon. Member from making two speeches on the same subject at different stages. I had understood—I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the Opposition wanted to keep subsection (3) and wished to debate the proposal to delete it. I had promised that I would separate the Question into two parts. I had thought—perhaps we might think about it between now and then, whenever "then" is—that the Opposition would thereafter be in favour of the new subsections (3) and (4), so that we might have a debate on the first part of Amendment No. 24 and, if necessary, a vote on both parts. Does that meet the hon. Gentleman's point?

Mr. Blaker: I cannot bind my hon. Friends, Mr. Speaker, but I expect that they will be favourably disposed to the second half of Amendment No. 24. If you agree, Sir, I would propose to discuss the second half of Amendment Nos. 24 now, as you have listed it among others for discussion with new Clause 4.

Mr. William Rodgers: I am not quite clear what is now proposed, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Opposition see our Amendment No. 24 as falling into two parts and that they wish them to be treated separately. However, we put down the Amendment in this form because we thought that it best met the needs of the occasion. I shall be most grateful if you will guide us on whether we should vote separately on what is, in fact, a single Amendment, bearing in mind that you have said that you do not want two speeches on one Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: We are looking to the future, and we are trying at the moment to prevent the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) from making a speech now and making the same speech hereafter. We shall have to come to it at its proper place, but I have suggested that I should accept the Opposition's request that we divide Amendment No. 24 into two parts. I do not think that that will damage the debate on either side. I shall put the two parts separately.

Mr. William Rodgers: Would that be for the purposes of a Division, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I regret that I am not making myself clear to both sides. I have suggested that when we come to Amendment No. 24—we are not there yet—the debate should take place on the proposal to leave out subsection (3), and, if necessary—I do not think that it will be, in view of what was said from the Opposition Front Bench—there could be a debate on the second half of the Amendment.

Mr. Blaker: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I will, therefore, leave out of what I am about to say remarks relating to the first part of Amendment No. 24.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not there yet. We never start a debate until both sides are satisfied that what we are doing is right, and the Minister looks troubled.

Mr. William Rodgers: I am very troubled, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that you propose that we should discuss the Amendment in my name as one Amendment, although obviously there will be remarks addressed to the separate parts of it, that when the time comes to vote you will divide the Amendment by a device which must be proper to yourself, because there is no means by which we can do that, and that there will then be two Divisions?
I understood you to say that there should be a single discussion now on this group of Amendments and the new Clause, to be followed, if necessary, by two Divisions. That seems to make good sense and to be a way of avoiding—as you wish to do—two separate debates

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am suddenly seized of the point the Minister is making, that among the list of Amendments we have grouped for this debate is Amendment No. 24. In view of that, I think that what we had better do is to debate all the issues in Amendment No. 24 and then when we come to it have two Divisions if necessary, separating the Amendment, as I said.

Mr. Blaker: I think that the proposition put to you, Mr. Speaker, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. North-East (Sir K. Joseph), at the beginning of today's proceedings on the Bill, was not that proposition. It was that we should have a separate debate on the first part of Amendment No. 24. Perhaps I might recapitulate his reasoning.
The first four words of Amendment No. 24 relate, in our view, to a totally separate matter—the overseas promotion of Scotland and Wales. That is totally separate from the rest of the matters comprised in new Clause 4, Amendment No. 4, or any of the other Amendments which it is proposed we should now take. I submit with the greatest respect that if we debate Scotland and Wales and their overseas promotion with the structure of the tourist boards, the consultation provisions and the committee system of the boards there will be a great deal of confusion. It will lead to clarity in debate, and it is within your powers, Mr. Speaker, if you say that we should debate, as well as vote on, the first four words of Amendment No. 24 separately.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker does not need to be reminded of what is in his powers. He knows. I must confess that I had not taken cognisance of the tact that Government Amendment No. 24 was grouped with this one. I think that the best plan would be to leave Amendment No. 24 out of this debate altogether.

Mr. William Rodgers: On a point of order. I hope that you will forgive me for pursuing this matter, Mr. Speaker. Government Amendment No. 24 was put on the Notice Paper in response to discussion in Committee and might be considered as the central issue in our debate now. It is mainly concerned with the question of consultation and assisting regional tourist associations. I understand that the other Amendments which you had included in this group deal precisely with this question.
The separate question is leaving out subsection (3). It seems to me that in making your selection for this debate you have already disallowed an Amendment with this precise purpose. It is not for me to comment on what you should now decide to do, but I respectfully suggest that if the whole Amendment is left out of the debate we would have the same debate twice. One of the principal factors in our present debate on the whole area of consultation would then not be eligible for discussion.

Mr. Blaker: The Minister may not have observed that there is in the name of my right hon. Friend and myself Amendment No. 26, which is identical with his Amendment No. 24 except for the first four words. That Amendment has been selected by you, Mr. Speaker, for debate with this group of Amendments. Therefore, the Minister's point is not valid. There will be an Amendment with the identical wording covering regional co-operation and consultation, and, therefore, we shall be debating the substance of Government Amendment No. 24, except the first four words.

Mr. Younger: Amendment No. 24 consists of two different points, and, as you have said, Mr. Speaker, two Divisions might be appropriate. The point at issue is that we feel that it requires two separate debates. The last thing I want to do is to prolong the proceedings, but it would be impossible to do justice to the first part of the Amendment in the context

of the large spread of other Amendments which are now grouped. I hope that we may be able to solve this by having a separate debate on the first four words. This would make matters go more quickly in the end.

Mr. Speaker: I am disappointed when the House gets bogged down in questions of procedure. All the Chair is trying to do is to help the House. I have promised that I will put the Question on Government Amendment No. 24 in two parts—first, to leave out subsection (3), and, second, on the rest of the Amendment. Unless we can reach agreement—and there does not seem to be agreement—I must rule, and I rule therefore that we must stick to the original suggestion, which is that we include in this discussion Government Amendment No. 24, when it will be possible for the Opposition to make all the observations they want to make on the first four words in Government Amendment No. 24 and all the rest of the words in that Amendment. We must proceed. I will consider, while he is speaking, the request of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) for a Division on Amendment No. 4.

Mr. Blaker: I must accept that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I think we shall find that the debate will be rather long because we shall be discussing a number of different matters.
The effect of new Clause 4 is to provide for a committee system which would advise the tourist boards in the performance of their functions. It would provide that the members of the committees would include persons with knowledge of the tourist industry, that they should have a certain representative character and include unpaid members.
As I have said, a number of subjects are covered by this group of new Clauses and Amendments. First, there is the committee system, with which goes the question of consultation with the industry by the boards. This is one of the most important matters in the Bill in relation to the success or failure of the boards. Then we have a series of Amendments, beginning with No. 4, which relate to the composition of the four boards to be set up. The effect would be to enlarge the boards from what is proposed in the Bill so that, instead of having about nine members, as the Bill proposes,


each would have about 16. This would provide for representative members of the industry being on the boards so that the boards would not lose touch with the industry.
Our Amendments would also provide for the encouragement of the boards to set up regional associations—again, a matter of great importance for the success of the boards.
Then there is the matter of the overseas promotion of Scotland and Wales, to which we have just referred. All these are separate matters about which we put forward separate Amendments in Committee. All these matters were set aside at the suggestion of the Minister of State when he agreed to accept the Amendment from our side of the Committee to establish an English Tourist Board.
Hon. Members will recall that when the Bill first appeared there was provision for a Scottish Tourist Board, a Wales Tourist Board, the B.T.A. and only an English Advisory Committee. The view was taken that this was anomalous, and the Minister agreed to the creation of an English Tourist Board.
At that time he suggested that he should leave on one side the important matters of consultation, committee structure and relations with the industry and regional associations, so that the Government could consider the situation resulting from the creation of the English Tourist Board which, in the Minister's view, transformed the situation and required further reflection, and we agreed with that proposal.

Dr. Gray: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House. He will remember that, although the proposal was made from his side of the Committee, it received backing from many Labour Members, and the Minister was persuaded by both sides to make the change.

Mr. Blaker: I certainly did not intend to mislead the House. When the hon. Member reads my remarks in HANSARD tomorrow, which I trust he will do, he may feel that he need not have made that intervention. The Amendments were proposed by our side of the Committee and received support from both sides.
The point I am making is that, by agreement of the Committee, we set aside all these important matters to be debated on Report. That is one reason why the debate, and my speech, cannot be short. We are dealing now with five separate matters which were of sufficient importance to be set aside by the Minister of State in Committee.
To deal, first, with the composition of the board, the Amendment suggests that there should be 16 members and that the board should include unpaid members. In putting down the Amendment we have in mind the present composition of the British Travel Association, which is not a statutory body but a company limited by guarantee. It is a co-operative organisation although it receives money from the Government to carry out its duties.
If I may give examples to show the House what we have in mind, the members of the board of the B.T.A. include the Chairman of the Wales Tourist Board, the Chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board and the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. They also include a number of Members who are distinguished for their general business experience; a representative of the Greater London Council, the Chairman of the London Tourist Board, representatives of B.O.A.C., British Transport Hotels, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the British Resorts Association, a member of the Railways Board, a member of the Cunard Steamship Company, the General Secretary of the National Association of Theatrical and Kiné employees, a representative of the National Bus Company, a director of Shell-Mex and B.P., and representatives of the Brewers' Society, the Urban District Councils' Association and the British Hotels and Restaurants' Association.
I list all those members to show that this body is widely representative of the industry and that its members are able to speak for the industry. Amendment No. 4 is inspired by that pattern.
We make a distinction between the new model which we propose and the existing British Travel Association because we have provided in the new board for an executive committee of six members. It follows the Government's thinking that there should be a small central group of people with executive capacity, but


around them we provide another 10 members who would be unpaid representatives.
We do not regard Amendment No. 4 as an alternative to new Clause 4. We regard it as having value in its own right. I shall turn in a moment to the committee system which should be set up under the various boards, but we feel that the boards themselves on top of the committee system should also be representative. There is a case for saying that the boards also should be representative of the industry.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity in this debate to give us his concept of the nature of the board, the sort of people who would be appointed, the extent to which they will be full time and the extent to which they will be paid. There was no such debate in Committee, and it is central to the whole success of the Bill.
Finally, in connection with the composition of the board we say that the chairman should have business experience and that the members of the board should be appointed in consultation with the industry. If he catches the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who has considerable experience of the tourist industry and its structure, will develop the arguments for the composition in due course.
Second, we have down Amendments to encourage regional associations. We do not regard those Amendments as alternatives to new Clause 4. We feel that regional associations are desirable in their own right. We believe that there must be some way of raising voluntary funds in future and that one of the ways will be through regional association. The raising of voluntary funds has been a successful feature of the British Travel Association. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), again if he catches the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be developing the argument in relation to regional associations.
I come to new Clause 4, which deals with the committee structure under the boards. Little if anything is said in the Bill about the form of the structure of the boards. The Bill in Clause 2 outlines the functions of the new boards. In the expression "boards" I include the B.T.A., which is, as it were, the umbrella

board. The Bill covers the functions and powers of the boards but says little about the structure. We suggest that it would be useful to write something into the Bill about the committee system.
Hon. Members on all sides will agree that the present British Travel Association has had a great record of success. One of the reasons for its success has been the feeling of the industry that the Association belongs to it. The industry feels involved in the activities of the British Travel Association. It is involved not only because it subscribes £200,000 a year to the B.T.A. but also because it is represented on its board and on all its committees. The B.T.A. receives in total £600,000 a year from the industry. The balance above the £200,000 is received in advertising revenue. The industry is glad to advertise in B.T.A. publications because it feels that the B.T.A. belongs to it.
I want now to give an example of the benefits of this feeling of involvement. The B.T.A. has on foot at the moment four experimental schemes for extending the holiday season which it is conducting at four different holiday resorts. These resorts are members of the B.T.A., and it is a slightly hazardous operation for them to undertake the expense required in the experiment. They have laid on facilities for six months in the year, whereas previously they were not required for more than three or four, and they have been persuaded by the B.T.A. to undertake this enterprise which, if it is successful, may lead to a breakthrough in the extension of the holiday season.
Another case in which the importance of this feeling of belonging is evident is the working out of package tours in which the present association plays such a leading rôle. It actually takes the initiative in thinking up possible package tours, putting them to the industry and getting them accepted. When a foreign travel agent wants advice about package tours, a package is already on the counter. He is not told that the association will see what can be worked out. It is ready for him, and that is one of the reasons for the association's success.
When working out package tours, it is necessary to get the co-operation of an immense number of enterprises—the railways, coach lines, historic house owners, festival organisers, hotel chains, tour


operators and so on. Any activity in tourism has to be done by a committee of ten or a dozen people, because that is the shape of the industry; in fact, the industry is composed of parts of many other industries. That is the importance of the committee system.
Hon. Members will know of the system which now exists, with a home committee, an overseas committee, a historic houses committee, a publications sub-committee, a camping and caravan sites sub-committee and a hotel guide sub-committee. Each sub-committee contains members who are experts in their subjects and who serve without reward, representing their respective industries.
The problem of how to get the co-operation and involvement of the industry is a subject on which the Bill says nothing, and that is why we think that something should be written into it. I go on to point out that in the new Clause we have not said that the committee system must reproduce that which exists already in the B.T.A., even though it is so successful. We think that it is right to leave the matter flexible, but it is right, too, to put into the new Clause the principle that the committees should involve what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet has called the amateurs. These amateurs who serve without reward have played a valuable rôle in the association in the past, and we think that they should do so in the future. Moreover, it is vital not only that there should be amateurs on these committees, but that as much as possible they should be given the power of decision in the committees. They should not be persons who are simply summoned together as a matter of form to talk. As happens now with the B.T.A., when it takes a decision it should have results.
I go on to suggest, therefore, although we do not say it in the new Clause, that the committees set up by the boards should normally be chaired by a member of the respective board even if most of the rest of the members are amateurs, so that, in that way, as much as possible they have the power of decision.
I do not intend to imply by putting down this new Clause, or by any of the other Amendments that we have, that other consultations with the industry will not be necessary—clearly they will—but

that the Committee system stands on its own.
The disappearance of the British Travel Association is viewed with mixed feelings—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Development of Tourism Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. McBride.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Blaker: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that the disappearance of the British Travel Association is viewed with mixed feelings because of its great success in the past. But we must accept that it will disappear and we must do our best to see that the new boards—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend says that we have not yet come to the question of the name. That I concede. But, whatever we call the new body, it is likely to come into existence. So we are faced with the problem of making sure that the new boards set off in the best possible atmosphere. Acceptance of the new Clause by the Government would be a striking demonstration to the industry that they intend to work in the closest co-operation with it. That would be a step towards winning the confidence of the industry.
Regretfully, I feel that the industry is inclined to say to itself, "What will these new boards do to us?" I hope that the House and the Government can create a situation in which the industry will ask, "What can we do with the boards?"

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have considered the request of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). I will grant a Division on Amendment No. 4. Mr. William Rodgers.

Mr. William Rodgers: I thought that it might be helpful if I said something at this early stage because, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) has said, this is an important debate. I should not disagree with him when he mentions five different topics being embraced by this group of Amendments and the new Clause. Therefore, I


will say something about these points now, and it may be that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, will find an opportunity later to answer some of the points which will no doubt be raised on the Floor of the House.
I turn, first, to the purpose of Amendment No. 24 which we have put down in the hope of meeting the wishes expressed in Committee. I gather from the Amendment put down by the Opposition that the proposals that we make here are broadly acceptable though, in their view, they do not go far enough.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South has raised a number of issues related to the central question of consultation and the regional associations.
I should like to say a few words about what has proved to be a point of controversy from a procedural point of view; namely, the removal of the provisions of subsection (3), which requires the B.T.A. to publicise Scotland and Wales overseas in their own right
unless otherwise requested by the Scottish Tourist Board or the Wales Tourist Board …".
No doubt my hon. Friend will have something to say about this later, but I should like to make clear that the subsection results from an Amendment made in Committee. Although its meaning is not wholly clear, I gather that it is intended to secure that Scotland and Wales shall be publicised as separate countries.
Throughout our discussions on Second Reading and in Committee there have been references to the British Travel Association, to which, again, the hon. Member for Blackpool, South has just referred. He said that it is of good standing and the industry does not want to see its procedures lost. This is very much the view of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor).
I think it is fair to say that, and I should tell the House at this stage that the B.T.A. has written to express its concern about the provisions of this subsection which I am now proposing we should remove. The House may like me to quote some of the Association's comments:
You will know that our Board has, on a number of occasions, emphasised the importance of the overseas promotion task being carried out on a national U.K. basis, and has

been fully supported in this attitude by the Chairmen of the Scottish, Wales and Northern Ireland Tourist Boards.
The marketing techniques which we use are generally commended, not only by the commercial interests but even by some of our foreign competitors, the national tourist offices in other countries, many of whom have been seriously weakened by the freedom given to other organisations in their respective countries to duplicate overseas promotion on a national or regional basis.
It is right that the House should know that the association's view, after very mature consideration and long experience, is that it is in the best interests of Britain as a whole, of Scotland, England, and Wales severally, and Northern Ireland, too, that promotion should be of the whole. That does not mean that there may not be individual promotions for Scotland, England or Wales, but, in the long run, if we want tourists to come to Britain, it must be Britain that we are making the appeal on behalf of, although various parts of it may be differently attractive at different times to individuals. I ask the House to consider this very seriously. It is a matter of legitimate differences of opinion, but I do not think we should lightly discard the view so clearly expressed by the B.T.A.
I turn, now, to the next part of my Amendment, which proposes a new subsection (3) referring to bodies such as regional and area travel associations. Under the Bill as drafted a tourist board would be able to make contributions to the tourism work of such bodies and to pay them for agency work done on behalf of the board. That is all under subsection (2)(d) of Clause 2. Discussion in Committee, however, revealed a general desire to see a specific reference in the Bill to regional and area travel associations. We felt, and I hope the House will agree, that there should be a provision in the Bill which recognises the important part which voluntary tourist bodies have to play in developing the full potential of different parts of the country. I emphasise this because, whereas it is true that we are setting up new statutory bodies, the success of tourism in this country will depend not only on the new machinery which we have created but on the individual and collective efforts of all those who work in the industry and believe it to be important.
We see a great and growing rôle for voluntary tourist associations, and that is


why we have made this specific provision that tourists boards will be expected to foster the growth and development of voluntary tourist bodies and to work closely with them. I expect that the economic planning councils which have made a notable contribution to regional development will see it as their rôle as well—I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not despise those who play their part in fostering voluntary bodies of this kind—so that the effort and the achievement will be shared around.
Subsection (4) has the purpose of drawing the attention of the new boards to the importance of consultations with the many interests concerned with tourism. This again is something that we discussed in Committee. I do not take the view that a formal structure of committees such as the hon. Gentleman proposes is required. I take the view that a large measure of discretion should be left to the new boards, when they have been set up, to consult the industry, to decide how best to keep in close and continuing contact. While I believe that this should be left largely discretionary, I am sure that it is right to spell out as we do here the desirability of consultation.
The tourist boards, to carry out their work successfully, will rely to a large extent on the established close links with the tourist industry and with other bodies concerned in any way with tourism. They cannot do their work without adequate machinery, not only for consultation, but for co-operative activity. They have adequate powers under the Bill as drafted to set up such machinery. I have, therefore, concluded that the right thing would be to include in the Bill a general provision to stress the importance of consultation.
I say "a general provision" because England, Scotland and Wales may wish to order their affairs in different ways. The problems of promoting and developing tourism in the three countries are different. They start from a different base in terms of tourist support, they are different geographically and there are existing bodies upon which each board may wish to build. That is the reason for this wide general provision, which will provide a great advantage in laying down the guidelines for the

boards. I understand from the Minister of State, Scottish Office, that some discussions have already taken place there which he may mention later
I have said that we believe that there should be a large discretionary element in the new machinery. What has been good for the British Travel Association may not necessarily be the right machinery for the new boards Also, although the British Travel Association has found one form of machinery satisfactory in the past, who knows but that it might have found the need to modify it to meet the needs of a rapidly changing industry? So we look to the boards to devise whatever machinery they think best, and it would be a pity to tie them in the way that new Clause 4 does.

Mr. Emery: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this point of fostering and co-operating, particularly with the regional associations, would he say whether the boards will be able to pass small amounts of finance to regional associations—I am thinking of the South-West Travel Association—to assist them in the work which the boards would want done? That is an important point.

Mr. Rodgers: They will be free to do this, and we see it as one of the functions of the boards to help the associations with some finance—although not necessarily on a considerable scale. The hon. Gentleman will agree, that, throughout the development of the industry, we must see that both public and private funds are made available. It has been fairly said that regional associations must not now expect their burden to be passed over to someone else. On the contrary: I hope that the associations will be able to draw on an even wider basis of voluntary contributions from all those involved in that industry, all of whom have not always given sufficient aid to the associations in the past.
I turn now to that group of Amendments dealing with the size and the membership of the boards. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South pointed out that there is a thread running through these Amendments, from the earlier proposals on machinery. I acknowledge and accept his purpose, which is to see more people drawn into the activities of the authority and boards than simply


the membership of those bodies. This is right; but when we are discussing tourism, and want the closest consultation and co-operation to cover all its aspects, we must not forget that the new tourist bodies will be successful in so far as they keep the consumer very much in mind.
Therefore, we should not move towards a position in which the tourist industry has the first and last word, although it must obviously have an important say, and must be consulted frequently about what the authority and the boards should do. Sometimes, in our discussions, I feel that the consumer has been left out. I was pleased with the trenchant contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) in Committee, when he drew attention to the rôle of the consumer and the need not to overlook him.
In looking at the Amendments we should stick to our original intention of small, working, functional boards for England, Scotland and Wales, and a slightly larger board for the British Tourist Authority. These should be compact bodies, capable of taking day to day responsibility as well as making longer-term policy decisions. If we examine the nature of decision-making in industry, and the way in which new management techniques are becoming effective, we see that there is a great deal to be said, in terms of efficiency, for small boards consulting frequently with outsiders and others in the industry. We want the tourist boards and the authority to do a job, not to be places to which people can be retired to make a peripheral contribution to policy out of long experience. We want effective working bodies, which will help to develop and promote the industry.

Mr. Rees-Davies: An executive authority, as set out in Clause 1, would be one thing but how shall we get into effective control and decision-making the people of real experience if there is not a wider board which they can attend and feel they are taking an effective decision in the outcome? There will be about 16 people needed for that.

Mr. Rodgers: I doubt whether it would satisfy the hon. Gentleman or his friends if there was a wider council of 16 people. If I wanted to add up the heads of all involved in the tourist industry there would be more than 16. If we take it

to that point, it becomes a nonsense. The right course is to have a small working body which will inevitably consult widely. Possibly a Tourist Board might choose to set up a consultative committee and then there could be 16, 26 or 56 members. It might decide to devise a committee system which would draw in many people to decisions of real responsibility.
The very proposals for an inner and outer cabinet give the game away in part, because hon. Gentlemen acknowledge the case for having a small group with main responsibility, but are merely anxious that the net shall be cast wide so that all the wisdom of the industry will be brought in to take part in decisions. I do not disagree with the net being cast wide. It has to be cast wider than it is, but it should not affect the central policymaking group. I have tried to review the position as we see it. Our Amendment makes provision for consultation for regional development. In that respect it meets the wishes expressed in Committee, and I hope that, when the time comes our proposals will receive full support and no effort will be made unreasonably to tie down the new Authority and boards.

Mr. Blaker: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, would he say a little more about the membership of the boards and what sort of persons will be appointed? Will they be full-time and fully salaried?

Mr. Rodgers: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Scotland is to reply to the debate, he may choose to say a word or two about them. We have not made appointments; it would be improper to do so. I said earlier that we want those who are best suited to contribute to the growth of the industry. We shall find those that we can who will do this job, but I should imagine that they will have commercial, industrial experience, although I should certainly not preclude anyone, even someone having no prior close business knowledge of the industry, who can make an original contribution to the success of the venture.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that a goodly number of hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. Reasonably brief speeches will help.

Mr. J. Grimond: From what I understand the Minister to have said, if we accept his view it


will preclude the Scots or Welsh from making their own propaganda overseas. Can he confirm that this will prevent the Scots or Welsh from promoting their own overseas tourist attractions?

Mr. William Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the chairmen of the Scottish, Wales and English Tourist Boards will sit on the Authority. They will play a full part in its discussions. I made it clear that the Authority will consult the boards in deciding what promotion there shall be. The point I was making, and which I hoped I had made clear, was that it would be for the Authority to look after promotion overseas. That is the way the British Travel Association has seen it in the past, and how it recommends it for the future.

Mr. Grimond: That confirms my worst suspicions. It means that it will be for the British Tourist Board to deal with the promotion of Scotland or Wales overseas. Scotland and Wales may make representations, and they may or may not have a seat on a board, but they will not have the right to promote their own tourist attractions overseas. That is a little unsatisfactory to Scotland—I am not in a position to speak for Wales.
First, it appears to be a hallucination of the English that they are widely beloved overseas; and that anyone who comes to Britain as a whole comes primarily to see the English. This is something that the British used to believe about the Americans. But many people come to Britain as a whole and go to Scotland or Wales, not England. The idea that all tourists to this country really come just to London and then move outwards—even to the provinces of England, or to Scotland or Wales—as an afterthought, is totally wrong.

Mr. Gower: Is it not the fact that, in the past, unfortunately the vast majority of the visitors from overseas have come only to London, and have not gone much farther?

Mr. Grimond: That may have been the case, but there are now a great many direct flights to Prestwick and other parts of Scotland for people who are anxious to go to Scotland only.
Secondly, there are a great many attractions in Scotland and Wales which do not exist in England. For instance, people from other countries want to play golf in Scotland, but are not prepared to take the English word for the attractions of Scottish golf.
Thirdly, from past experience, we just do not rely on the English to know about Scotland. I myself would not presume to promulgate to the world the beauties of Putney. Putney appears to me to be an extraordinary jungle, into which I seldom venture. When I do, I find it very peculiar indeed. I would not dream of saying that I was a suitable man to project overseas the beauties of Putney. But anyone who lives in England appears to think that he is entitled to project Scotland, Wales, Ireland or anywhere else in the world. That is a total hallucination.
I ask the Minister to regard this matter extremely seriously, because what I say is the view, not only of the general public in Scotland but the view of those who deal with tourism professionally in Scotland—

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Who?

Mr. Grimond: If the Minister is under the impression that his is the attitude of those dealing with tourism in Scotland, he is totally wrong.
In Scotland, there have been wide spread complaints about the projection of Scotland overseas by English authorities. At the moment there is strong demand in Scotland that Scotland itself should be allowed to explain its own advantages, its own beauties, to the world at large. I do not say anything about the latter part of the Minister's speech, but which deals with a different point, but I do ask him to consider this aspect again. It is not the case that the Scottish people, either at large or those dealing with tourism, are content to leave things on the basis that they will be entitled to make representations to some London-based authority about how Scotland is projected overseas.
There is a great deal to be said for allowing Scotland to project its own view overseas. If it is left to the English, Scotland may well be projected as a sort of tartan-wearing, haggis-eating country, of a mild peculiarity and with a comic


opera view. In fact, its art, its beauty and its attractions to tourists depend to a very large extent on their being projected in a serious way by the people who appreciate them.
I ask the hon. Gentleman seriously again to consider this matter and to believe that the demand in Scotland is that Scotland should be allowed, at any rate on some occasions, to conduct its own propaganda overseas.
It may well be that the Scots should consult—I do not object to that—and on many occasions there may be a joint projection of Britain as a whole, but there are some occasions and some aspects of tourism on which the Scottish want their country to be projected by themselves in their own way. The Minister will be making a very grave mistake if he thinks that this can be met by saying that they have a seat or two on a British authority and can make representations to that authority.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to say who has told him this? He has referred to the people of Scotland, but who does he mean?

Mr. Grimond: The right hon. Gentleman will not be kind enough, but he holds in his hand a letter which bears this out.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I found it slightly depressing to hear the new separatist call from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). It rather diminished his standing in this House.
I wish to turn to Amendment No. 6 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. Carol Johnson), which is being considered with this new Clause and other Amendments. It raises a point of rather special importance. Although most of us, certainly those on these benches, are eager to see the Bill go through and to give it full support, although we very much welcome the proposals in it and also the statement by the Minister of State about consultation, we think it right that there

should be special reference to the work carried out by the Countryside Commission in England and the Countryside Commission in Scotland.
Because of the special character of that work, which is carried out under the Countryside Act, there is a case for special reference to consultations with the Commissions. There should be an appointment to the new general authority covering travel of some person who has the confidence of the Countryside Commissions and is intelligible about the work that the Commissions are doing.
All of us would accept that, particularly in the last two years since the establishment of the Countryside Commission out of the earlier National Parks Commission, there has been considerable development of research and collection of information and also the provision of facilities for people who enjoy the countryside. The National Parks Commission had a very much more restricted remit. It was concerned with the national parks, but the Countryside Commission is concerned with the whole of the countryside and the sea coast. It is concerned not only with conducting surveys of facilities available for tourists but with those facilities themselves and their provision in a way which will do least damage to the natural beauty of the countryside, and also with ensuring that adequate provision will be made.
For that reason, my hon. Friends and I consider that there should be special reference to the Countryside Commission. The last thing we want is confusion about the rôle of these two bodies. We should be able to work out satisfactorily the rôles that each has to play. I do not think it will happen automatically, unless it is fully understood from the start that there are dangers. It is conceivable that there will be overlapping. Not only must there be the fullest consultation, but one of the members of the new authority should be someone with knowledge of the working of the Countryside Commission.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about the rôle of the Countryside Commission and the way it will work in with the new authority.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I think that we shall soon lose the former Leader of the Liberal Party to a monastic assembly so that he can pursue his future vocation as a crofter. Before he retires to his very pleasant islands in the Hebrides, or wherever it may be that he will pursue that great craft, I will tell him that it is a very clever Scot, a man who was educated at Fettes, who has been responsible in New York for the promotion of tourism in Great Britain, including Scotland. This has been one of the finest pieces of public relations work.
I throw in my lot with the Government in agreeing that the promotion of Britain as a whole is best done by a mixture of Celts, English, Scots and Irish in positions overseas without regard to their own countries. This is not to say that the Welsh may not have a case for saying that hitherto they have not been very effectively developed, but largely they have only themselves to blame, because as the Secretary of State for Wales and others have pointed out there is an overlapping in Wales between many institutions. Until this overlapping ceases, Wales will not get or deserve the benefit of greatly increased tourism.
I do not believe that in the promotion of tourism for Britain we can divide and rule. That way I have said that it should be pursued represents the view of a certain person who is Chairman of the British Travel Association. He has a good Scottish name, if nothing else. I would have said that he is a good Scot. In tourism there are large numbers of Scots and Celts who are well able to look after the individual interests of their respective countries.
On consultation, I am happy with Amendment No. 24. Scattered throughout the country is a proliferation of bodies all of which will seek to call themselves interested in tourism and claim the right to be consulted and to participate in decision-taking.
On Amendment No. 4, what is the right size of the executive authority? There is, first, the Chairman of the main authority—the B.T.A. There are the Chairmen of the English, Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards. On any view, there will be an executive of a further five. That makes the nine wise men. I do not suggest other than that 9 is a good and

useful figure as the principal executive controlling authority. But the fear is—I have said it many times, and these are views widely held by many of the leaders working in the British Travel Association, whom I could name—that the excellent committees on which people are now working will remain committees, and they will not have any real say or effective control in the day-to-day working of the new authority.
Here is an example. There is no reason why anybody at present on the Historic Houses Committee should necessarily become one of the executive members, the nine wise men. I can think of many names to illustrate the point. Two Members of the House of Commons are concerned, the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). They are two part-time members. I can think of various leaders in the tourist trade.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu is in his own right a man of no mean authority in the promotion of tourism in Britain. I name him as one among many. It might be felt that a person of that calibre would be very useful in an executive body which had a real say. We have proposed a membership of 16 to give room for a further eight or nine men who would serve on the board as do members of boards of big companies, not being concerned with every decision taken from day to day.
Research can be important. The Government might wish to have the assistance of a university team to conduct research into tourism. The professor leading such a team would probably not qualify to be one of the five on the executive committee, but he would still qualify to be on the wider board. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) mentioned the Countryside Commission. Perhaps one of the leaders concerned on that side would be thought worth while as a man with a valuable knowledge to contribute to the wider board but not to the executive work of the smaller body of nine.
This is a different argument from the one I raised by Amendment in Committee. There, I was seeking to know whether the Government would retain the sort of structure of the B.T.A., and we got


an undertaking that they did so intend, but without binding the Authority to continue in that way. The Committee was satisfied with that undertaking, and, broadly speaking, both sides of the House are willing to accept the provisions being made for consultation, subject to the arguments which may arise from Wales and Scotland about whether they have an effective say.
We must ensure that we have the right executive authority. The British Tourist Authority must have effective control over four matters: (1) its own administration; (2) the securing of effective co-ordination, without overlapping, in the various branches of tourism; (3) the promotion and execution of effective research; (4) the pursuit of its true promotional function, advertising and public relations. The five men and the four cannot give the breadth of view needed for such a wide industry.
It is 15 years since I first addressed the House on the need to try to do something to co-ordinate the tourist industry. Very little has been done. The Conservative Government put Lord Hill in charge of trying to get together with the Ministries to co-ordinate the industry. This was a complete failure from beginning to end. It was not Lord Hill's fault. He was an able enough man for the task.
Then the Labour Party came to power. Nothing has been done about co-ordination. What has been done to bring the fine arts together? Not an iota. The British Museum is run by the Treasury and the Department of Education and Science is trying to operate the Victoria and Albert Museum, while the Ministry of Public Building and Works is higgledy-piggledy in charge of a whole range of other things. If one tried to arrange a tour in this country to see the different museums one would need to go to half a dozen different authorities.
Dealing with historic homes are the Civic Trust and a paraphernalia of bodies. There is not even one guide where one can get them together. This is serious, because within a year come the jumbo jets. It would not be at all difficult to have 1,000 or more Americans coming to this country every week next year on package tours, and the B.T.A. is trying to provide precisely that. It has

laid on the best theatre tours to be found anywhere in the world. One can fly here from New York and return for £75, having five days here, and going to a theatre every night. It is cheaper for a man in New York to come here and go to the theatre than it is for a man in California to go to New York and do the same.
What do the Government do about it? They do not co-ordinate anything. All is one big muddle, overlapping in every direction. The only hope is to create a British tourist authority with sufficient power and authority to knock together the heads of the Ministries and the other bodies. It is not very easy to knock people's heads together in this country. They do not take easily to it without doing something about it, usually in an eruptive fashion, and so it is necessary to try to find the best people and put them in authority. That is what the Amendment is really all about.
We believe that there should be a very small executive body—the nine wise men. There might even be a girl among them if we are lucky. We should then try to get the other people of authority to have a real say. It is no good just consulting them. We have all consulted them. There must have been at least 15 bodies that the Government consulted when we were settling those endless Amendments in Committee, and there are another 15 bodies that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) has probably seen. We all see them in connection with this and other Bills.
Before the Bill leaves another place we want the Government to have another close look and consider whether we can get the people from these other industries to have an effective say, beca
use otherwise the men and women serving on the important research committees, the overseas committees and the rest will be lost. They will not have an effective say, and they will not be able to support the Board of Trade, which must be the leading Ministry in this matter, it must find the people to co-ordinate the effort to prevent overlapping in all these different industries. The promotion of public relations overseas, the question of the fine arts, the historic homes, the question of support must all come under one umbrella in time.
Now is the opportunity to get ahead with the task. I hope that the Government will seize it and get ahead with it and that we shall thus have an effective Measure which, when we return to power we shall be delighted to take over and make even more effective.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: In the interests of brevity, I shall confine my attention principally to Amendment No. 21. Its principal objective is not just to permit the national as opposed to the British tourist boards to sub-contract a considerable portion of their work to local or regional travel associations, which either already exist in some areas, I am glad to say, or, as a result possibly of encouragement given by such a provision, will come into existence. It is obvious from our discussions in Committee that there are parts of Britain which do not have local travel associations and would be glad to see them developed.
There is a difference between laying a specific duty on the English and Scottish and what is called, for some reason, the Wales rather than the Welsh tourist boards to provide financial assistance of this kind and merely saying that they are not prevented from doing so. Our experience in the South-West has led to the reasonable conclusion that, £ for £ of expenditure, local tourist or travel or promoting associations—let us call them that—can give a much better return than a very large organisation paying enormous rents for office accommodation in some already overcrowded centre of population.
Anyone who knows, for example, the work of the South-West Travel Association—and I do not apologise for referring to one in the area which I represent—cannot help noting that this body, which covers an area providing 22 per cent. of the holidays taken in Britain, operates on a budget of about £13,000 a year. That budget is quite inadequate, but no one familiar with the activities and enthusiasm of the association can deny that the return on the investment, which is almost entirely made up of voluntary contributions by enterprises in the areas, is truly amazing.
It is one thing to ask for financial assistance in general terms—that is always a popular thing to do—but we

owe a duty, when considering expenditure of public money, to indicate our priorities, because otherwise individual claims become submerged in the sand of general claims. That has often happened. There are two major courses. The first is to make considerable sums of public money available to organisations on the ground that they have demonstrated their capacity to raise voluntary funds. The second is to reward success and relate the scale of financial assistance from the Government to the success which the entity concerned has in persuading people to back it voluntarily.
Those are the two alternatives, and the latter commends itself to me more than the former, first, because it gives an incentive to local or regional tourist-promoting entities to provide for themselves from the people who primarily derive profit from their activities, which is a reputable thing to want to do, and, secondly, because it rewards success. It might not be an entirely irrelevant parallel to mention parsons whose Easter offerings, instead of appearing in the plate, are doubled by the diocese, an entirely healthy process which apparently meets with the approbation of the Church of England.
Where there is a major task to be fulfilled by the regional or local tourist associations, it is not enough to have ad hoc transfusions for a given promotional purpose, for example, for Lorna Doone year, in the West Country, or somebody else's year somewhere else. This may be desirable when these bodies are starved of financial resources, but it is not the most economical way or spending money. It usually costs more to employ personnel on a "hiring and firing" system, and one gets less in return, since people continually have to be trained for the job and are dismissed at the end of the project budget. This is not a sensible way of doing it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend's arguments, but will he bear in mind that one reason why his regional association appears to be doing well is that it is using private and voluntary resources, and therefore the disciplines are likely to be a great deal higher than with public money.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I fully take my hon. Friend's point, and that is why of


the two alternative systems of allocating public money I prefer the second one, which relates the allocation of public funds to the success of raising it from voluntary sources. This discourages bodies from being lazy about collecting funds on their own behalf. Even if the quantum of money which they have demonstrated their capacity to collect is doubled, trebled or multiplied by ten, tight financial control is still needed to make the money go round.
I am not criticising this. If one thinks of the allocation of public funds to promoting tourism in Wales or Scotland, which is so many times what is allocated to the South-West—indeed, nothing is allocated to the South-West—one may wonder what are the criteria. The total funds allocated to Welsh and Scottish tourism are about the same as are allocated to the South-West, yet there is no perceptible relationship between the allocation of central Government funds between the two. I am not saying that there should be, but merely pointing out the disparity and, where there is an enormous disparity, it is reasonable that the person responsible for the disbursement of public funds should justify that disparity.
It may be said that this is special pleading because the South-West has been particularly successful in generating a voluntary travel association which operates on a financial shoestring. This is not the case. I would be happy, as I am sure would my colleagues from the South-West, to see such organisations set up in other parts of the United Kingdom, because we all have an interest in promoting tourism in the United Kingdom as a whole.
It is not a question of robbing Peter to pay Paul. There is a momentum in tourism, and tourists from abroad are far more likely to travel from one place to another than are tourists and holidaymakers originating in the United Kingdom. Even those originating in the United Kingdom have become far more mobile.
The research done on behalf of the South West Travel Association by Miles-Kelcey shows this clearly. British Rail each year notice a diminishing request for their services in moving holidaymakers because the holidaymakers want to be mobile once they arrive at the other end,

not because they like being stuck in a queue of traffic on the way to their destination. They want a degree of mobility when they arrive, and the same is undeniably true of visitors from overseas. We may caricature their ambition when they say they want to "do" Britain, but this is precisely what they want: to see as much as possible and to take as wide a range of photographs as possible, to get a disparate experience, rather than an identical experience, within the limits of the time and finances available to them.
I do not regard publicity which attracts people to another part of Britain as being inimical to the interest of the area I represent. To adopt that attitude would lead to fewer tourists for everybody, particularly the overseas tourists. We need a blend of the two in advertising with the idea that we are not going to get people anywhere in Britain without getting them to Britain. As a general proposition, the more places we can get them to visit, once they come, the more money they will spend while here.
The cheapest way of spending a holiday is generally to spend it in one place, because transport costs can be considerable when one moves from one place to another. It will be the initial task of the British Travel Association—for some reason referred to on the outside of the Bill as the British Tourist Authority, although this was amended in the Standing Committee—to promote the flow of tourists from abroad into Britain.
To do that to the greatest advantage, the attractions of the individual holiday resorts and places of interest and entertainment within Britain, in their richness and variety, need to be drawn to the attention of overseas visitors. It is not because we want too many to come to the same place at the same time. We have all seen holiday areas become almost castrated of national characteristics with too many visitors of one nationality appearing at the same time in the same place.
"She will have Hilton wherever she goes"—and maybe the bar is given a local name and the restaurant another local name; and maybe some Americans want Hilton wherever they go, but many overseas visitors come to this country to see it as it is, just as many people leave Britain to go to other countries to see


them as they are, rather than as a ridiculous façade set out to reproduce conditions in our own country or vice versa.
I recommend Amendment No. 21 with a clear conscience. It is not intended to promote any one part of the United Kingdom as against another. It is merely in support of the proposition that size, centralisation and efficiency by no means necessarily go together and that, where we can harness part-time and voluntary effort and enthusiasm and increase its capacity for achievement by assistance from public funds, very often we are bringing the best possible use of public funds which, as we all know, are scarce and will remain so in the foreseeable future.

11.0 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: I want to say a few words about Amendment No. 24. I had some success in Committee in getting agreement that power should be given to the Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards to see that the interests of Scotland and Wales as tourist countries were promoted.
I do not quarrel with the Minister of State about the advantages of advertising Great Britain as a whole, but it must be appreciated that Part II of the Bill is short-term, whereas Part I is intended to go on for a longer time, and it is no good passing legislation which takes no cognisance of the fact that great changes are likely to come. Following up the Minister's words about the need to advertise Britain as a whole, if we go into Europe, is it suggested that we should publicise Europe as a whole, and carry on in that way?
If we have one centralised body promoting tourism for Britain as a whole, is it envisaged that there will be fair shares for all and that, instead of being able to make the best of the tourist facilities available in certain sections of the United Kingdom, the jam will be spread proportionately to population, and so on? While I am certain that the majority of promotion can and should be done overseas on a United Kingdom basis, it cannot be sensible to write into the Bill facilities which do not allow any deviations.
In Scotland, for instance, we have a western seaboard which is as good as anything to be found in Norway. It is

to be hoped that someone in the future will have shiploads of tourists sailing up and down the coast and will then send his ships somewhere else in the winter, which is important in view of our short tourist season. Any commercial firm involved in such an undertaking will want to advertise overseas with a view to attracting foreign visitors, but, as I understand it, the Scottish Tourist Board will be unable to go in with the firm.
To take another example, if the complex at Aviemore decides to run a special week or fortnight and is prepared to spend money overseas promoting it, the Scottish Tourist Board will not be able to go in on it.
We are putting ourselves into too much of a strait-jacket. It may be that we did not get the wording of Clause 2(3) right, but the Government are going too far in making certain that the Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards do not have this special function and facility. This is a mistake in the framing of the Bill. It is not a question of saying that we do not believe in selling the United Kingdom as a whole; it is a question of making certain that the changing pattern of trade in future can be catered for and that, when there are special circumstances, they can be used.
Furthermore, how is it possible to say that the Scottish Tourist Board will have the right to spend money on providing literature for use in this country which does not appear to be suitable for use overseas? [Interruption.] I understand from the Government's Amendment that the Scottish Tourist Board does not have the right to spend money overseas. If it is producing literature which is useful for promoting tourism in the south of England, I cannot see, as a result, that it is allowed to use this literature overseas.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Scottish Tourist Board now is commissioned by the British Travel Association to prepare material which the B.T.A. sends abroad—and it is very effective. That is done by the S.T.B. There is no reason why it should not persist.

Sir J. Gilmour: This means that it is spending money and taking part in promotion overseas. This seems sensible.
I cannot help feeling that whilst the Amendment that we made in Committee may not have been entirely satisfactory, the Government's Amendment is no better. If anything, it is making the situation rather worse. I hope that even at this late stage we can find a better compromise which would deal more effectively with the situation.

Mr. Gower: I have discovered tonight that on the two sides there is a completely different approach to the composition of the board. This has been muted by the reasoned way that both sides have explained their opinions. The Government have opted for a small board, which they would probably describe as a highly professional body. I find some reason for apprehension in the composition of that Board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) asked what the composition of the board would be, and the Minister said that perhaps we would hear something about it at the end.
But we can ascertain a good deal about the composition of this authority from the Bill. First, we are told that there will be a chairman appointed by the President of the Board of Trade. Then there will be the chairmen of the respective boards in England, Scotland and Wales appointed by the respective Ministers, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales—again Government appointees. The five other members of this authority will again be appointed by the Minister. So the authority will be a collection of nine placemen all appointed by Ministers.
The respective boards for England, Scotland and Wales will have similar appointments. Their chairmen will be appointed, respectively, by the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales. Their members in turn will be appointed by Ministers. I only hope that the Ministers will exhibit great wisdom in choosing these individuals. However, I feel that it is a source of possible weakness that they will all be Government appointees selected in this way.
It would be far better if there was some tolerance outside this narrow selection

and these relatively small bodies of appointees had the same power to co-opt other part-time members from the industry in general, or if, indeed, as is the case today, there was some provision for representation by members of other organisations connected with the tourist industry.
It is an unfortunate circumstance that these boards are to be so small, appointed in all cases either by the President of the Board of Trade or, indirectly, by other Ministers.
I think that a powerful case was made out by my hon. Friend that these should be larger boards. Not only should they be larger boards which include some of the experts in the tourist industry outside this narrow field of Government appointees, but there should be some different system of appointment for members in excess of the number of the inner group or executive committee which has been proposed by us.
We have the argument about the introduction of some different structure similar to that which has been employed with great success in the past. The Government have rejected our appeal that this should be written into the Bill in the way we propose. This is unfortunate, because here again we shall see the reverse of this small specialised professional body and the maintenance of what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) called in Committee the preservation of something of the amateur in this industry. In this sense amateur is not a term of disparagement but of approbation. In this industry we need to maintain the specialised knowledge of those who will not necessarily be good full-time members of the board, but who could nevertheless give a great deal to the work of these boards if they were enabled to be part-time members.
I turn, now, to the question of publicity overseas, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). I accept the Minister's view that most of the promotion can best be done by the authority as a whole, but I think that he was wrong in suggesting that there is universal approbation in Scotland and Wales for the way in which this work has been done in the past and is likely to be done in the future. There is a good deal of discontent in Wales and


in Scotland about this, because most of the visitors to this country do not visit Scotland or Wales. Most of them do not even visit parts of England outside London.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Nonsense.

Mr. Gower: The Ministers says "Nonsense". The large majority of visitors to this country merely visit London. I concede that a certain number go as far as Stratford-upon-Avon, and that a few Americans visit their ancestral homes whether they be in East Anglia, or Scotland, or North Wales.

Mr. Younger: Or Workington.

Mr. Gower: Or Workington. The fact remains, however, that whatever its success in other directions, the B.T.A. has not been particularly successful in steering these overseas visitors to many parts of the United Kingdom. That is why we in Wales, and why many people in Scotland, had hoped that over and above the general power given to the main authority these boards would have some powers in connection with overseas promotion.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not my hon. Friend think that it must be part of the duty of B.T.A. to steer people away from certain parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Gower: That may be so, but it is the association's duty to try to steer more visitors beyond the confines of the Metropolis. They have not been doing this in the past, although perhaps it is not easy. We would like larger boards, not limited to placemen appointed by Ministers, the maintenance of the committee structure which has served the industry so well, and some power for the separate boards to have some say in overseas promotion beyond the general power of the authority.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I was not on the Committee, so, although I have studied those proceedings and these tonight with interest, mine is perhaps a "green" view of the Bill. But this is an important aspect of tourism, and I am not happy with the Government's solution. The Minister of State has said that he wants the new authority and the boards to be "effective working bodies". Whether

they are effective at their present size must depend on what work he envisages them doing. Amendment No. 24 encourages me. The new subsection (4) gives the boards particular responsibilities, and Clause 2(1) gives wide freedom to the B.T.A. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that we wanted some body taking a broad view, and for this purpose the numbers suggested by the Government are not sufficient.
If tourism is to flourish, it must permeate our economic thinking, and not just be grafted on to our economic arrangements. It has taken the Government four or five years to realise that tourism is integrated with our whole economy. If it is to expand, there should be people on the authority with the capacity and the time for creative thinking about the industry's infrastructure for the next ten or 15 years. Government spokesmen give the impression that they concentrate on tourism in the short term but make insufficient provision for the authority to have the time or resources to do this creative thinking.
If the Government make the authority larger it might be able to roll into it some of the other bodies now advising the Government and industry on related matters. I would like to see the authority become the Government's principal adviser and source of creative thinking. I want it to have time and sufficient personnel to think about the change in increasing the provision of activity holidays for our people. This can help underpin the industry and, without taking an unnecessary protectionist attitude, it has a direct effect on the balance of payments.
In subsection (4) of Amendment 24 the Government propose that the tourist boards should have regard to:
… the desirability of undertaking appropriate consultation with persons and organisations, including those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, who have knowledge of, or are interested in, any matters affecting the discharge of those functions.
The number of people interested in or with knowledge of matters affecting the discharge of the responsibilities of the boards and the authority are very great. At the risk of being tedious and parochial, let me give an illustration from my constituency. At present the Water Resources Board is responsible for the


conduct of a feasibility study into the construction of a barrage across Morcambe Bay. A project of this kind, if implemented, will have more impact on the leisure and tourist industry in the North-West than any 50 or 100 minor matters.
When this kind of project is considered, I hope that the new authority will be able to examine it in great detail and with great expertise, advising the Government on the leisure and tourist aspects. This is being done now, and the Chairman of the North-West Economic Planning Council is closely concerned. The figures involved are £50 million to £70 million, and the leisure element of the project has a capital value of £20 million to £30 million. The authority should be able to give thorough consideration to such vast projects.
The present numerical strength of authority and the boards would not be sufficient to enable the necessary forward creative thinking to put our tourist industry into a rôle as important in the economy in the '70s and '80s as coal and textiles were in the pre-1940 era. In the North-West, where tourism is successful, it is not isolated from general economic life, it is an integral part of the whole thinking of those responsible for the conduct of economic affairs. I should like to see a board which was more numerous, so that it could talk at the necessary level for the necessary time and be able to understand and pursue these matters and not act as a posting house for the passing on of other people's ideas, which is all that it will be able to do with the numbers now proposed.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: If, as has been said, the British Travel Association does work against Clause 2(3), it does not surprise me very much. It is probably quite nervous of not being neutral as between the three countries involved. Let us make no bones about it: really active members from Scotland and Wales will put pressure on the board to publicise towns and areas in their own countries, and I can see the British Travel Association having considerable difficulty in adequately fulfilling its task.
I am extremely interested in the hint we have had from the Minister of State, Scottish Office about the discussions

which he has been having, and to which his hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade referred. I am quite sure that the Scottish Tourist Board would not agree with the views of the British Tourist Association or, if it did, it would indicate a complete change in the attitude adopted for years. One of the continual cries of Mr. Nicholson—who is, perhaps, more entitled than anyone else to be called "Mr. Tourism in Scotland"; he knows the job probably better than anyone else—was that the Scottish Tourist Board was not able to publicise itself overseas. With great respect, I do not think that the British Tourist Association can be expected—it certainly cannot be relied on—to promote the pleasures and the scenic loveliness of Achiltibuie and the Summer Isles when the season when they are at their best coincides with some lovely weather on the West Coast of Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was accused of being separatist when he said that the Scottish Tourist Board wanted a hand in this business, and that a lot of people thought that it should. There is nothing separatist about this. The main task is to bring people to the United Kingdom. Tourism is a tremendous revenue earner, and how we achieve our objective does not desperately matter. If one way or one time is more effective, let us be flexible in using every possible means of attracting people.
Scotland is very popular overseas, I do not wish to disparage my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. and right hon. Members opposite who have the misfortune to be English—that is the last thing I would do—but I know, as the Minister will know when he goes abroad, that when a British visitor clocks in at an hotel and it is said, "Ah—Anglais", there are immediate smiles, until he says "Anglais—non: Ecossais"—and then the sun really breaks through and he gets much better treatment.
There is therefore an exercise to be done in reverse, and good publicity by the Scottish Tourist Board could be of colossal benefit to the United Kingdom. People will not just come to Scotland and then not come south—not as long as we have a border and not a frontier. As it is, they come to London and then a few, but not enough, find their way north. If we started the movement in


the reverse direction and got a lot of people going to Scotland, which is tremendously popular, they would not just stay there but would come south, and it would be of colossal benefit to the economy of the country as a whole.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am sure that at this late hour we are doing very little for the leisure industry of hon. Members. I think the complaints and arguments which have been made prove conclusively that the advisory boards will be too small. They will not be able adequately to advise the Executive at the centre, for there will be too few people on them and they will not represent adequately the great variety of interests in the country.
I was in two minds when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) so eloquently deal with Amendment No. 21. I thought it would be a good thing if instead of simple representation from Scotland and Wales the English regions should not be overlooked. He made a convincing case for the regional associations which his Amendment proposes. I thought that alongside a regional association for the South-West there should be a regional association for East Anglia. This would be very sensible, because in the past the East Anglian region—one of the loveliest in the country—has had very short shrift by the national tourist associations. We have been represented as a combination of Silly Suffolk and Sandringham, with perhaps one or two beaches at Yarmouth. An East Anglian association would do a very much better job. It would no doubt promote for foreign tourists the very real attractions of our area, the seascapes, the shores, the Broads, the Wash and the rivers. It could do a very much better job than has been done in promoting the attractions of our cities of Norwich, Cambridge and Colchester and the charming smaller towns such as Lavenham and Long Melford.
In the past the national tourist associations have done an inadequate job in promoting these regional attractions. At the centre of the work of such a regional association as my hon. Friend suggested would be that area of the countryside covered by Bury St. Edmunds. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be the first to wish that such a regional

association should bring out the special charms of West Suffolk. Here in a very small area we have an immense variety. In the chalk country we have the beauties of Newmarket. I am sure that many foreign tourists would wish to go there. Further north we have the sandy country with the lovely forest on the borders of Suffolk and Norfolk. A regional association, unlike great boards in London, would draw attention to the attractions of the forest. Then there are the lovely clay valleys of the middle area of West Suffolk with the villages of Wickhambrook and the charming Constable country of the Stour. What more could a regional association want more than the opportunity of presenting across the plains of the Middle West the attractions of the Stour Valley of Suffolk? I think, too, not simply of the geographical charms of the area but of its great history. Having lived in the United States, I know how the Americans are attracted to the history of our area. As my hon. Friend's Amendment proposes, a regional association would be far more concerned with, and far more capable of putting forward, the historical attractions of the West Suffolk area than any large-scale national organisation such as is proposed in the Bill.
We have, for example, in Bury St. Edmunds the great abbey where the knights met to draw up the dress rehearsal for Magna Carta's signing at Runnymede. A regional association, and a regional association alone, would present such local things far more effectively than any national organisation. This year the 1,300th anniversary of St. Edmund offers a splendid opportunity for a regional association to put forward.
I think I have illustrated my theme well enough. Here is a great opportunity, as my hon. Friend has proposed, for regional associations all the way across our country to get down to the real job of bringing tourists to England as she is lived on the ground. But, having put forward these very strong arguments in favour of my hon. Friend's Amendment, I shall not be able to support it, for, attractive as these possibilities may be, I fear that his Amendment, and, indeed, most of the Bill, is simply another device to erect yet another bureaucracy to hand out yet more public money for purposes better served, in my opinion, by private enterprise. That would lead me into a


wider theme than I am permitted this evening. I simply say that I cannot support my hon. Friend's Amendment simply because it is asking that yet more public money should be handed out by yet another regional bureaucracy.
In his own argument, what my hon. Friend did was to present to the House an admirable description of the South-West Tourist Association, and he indicated how with a tiny budget, £13,000, it was, if anything, doing a far better job for the region than all the great national organisations that had so far intervened in its affairs. What a splendid case he made out! He illustrated the significant difference between moneys provided privately by the voluntary associations which produced the £13,000 and the rather less effective job which would have been done, and is being done, by Government funds and Government bureaucracies. It seems to me that, far from making his case, my hon. Friend proved precisely the opposite. He proved that a private organisation using voluntary funds is far more likely to do an effective job than all the big bureaucracies that are proposed in his Amendment and all through the Bill.
So, beguiled as I am by the possibility of regional associations being able to advertise to the world the charms and attractions of West Suffolk and, in particular, Bury St. Edmunds, I fear I must tell my hon. Friend that his Amendment places me in a dilemma between my desire to promote the beauties of my constituency and my loyalties to the principles of private enterprise, for which I stand on this side of the House, and as between these two attractions I am bound to come down in favour of the Simon Pure doctrine of leaving it to private enterprise to promote this, and, therefore, I cannot support his Amendment.

Mr. Younger: It is a great pity that the Government tabled Amendment No. 24 in its present form, which is simply to delete one subsection and insert two subsections in its place which have no relation to the one that is to be deleted. This is why the difficulty has arisen and why those who disagree with the first part of this Amendment think that we have had an unsatisfactory debate. It has been an unsatisfactory debate, not because my hon. Friends have not had the chance to speak, but

because the diffuseness of it all and the interspersing of one argument with another have not enabled us to present the Government with a perfectly sensible and serious point which I know is strongly felt in Scotland and, for all I know, in Wales.
At one point during the debate the Minister of State, Scottish Office was wearing which I call—my Scottish colleagues will know what I mean—his S.E.T. face. This is a face which betrays his mounting uncontrollable agitation and is usually the prelude to one of his celebrated knock-about winding-up speeches which are entertaining but totally irrelevant, in which he lashes out at as many people as possible irrespective of whether they have said what he says they have said.
I hope that the Minister of State will accept the argument about permitting the Scottish Tourist Board to have the right on occasions to operate from overseas as being a serious marketing argument as well as being somewhat of an emotional argument for people in Scotland. As there is a respectable case for what the Minister proposes—that is, that Britain can be promoted effectively only by promoting it everywhere as Britain—so there is an equally respectable technical and marketing case—respectable in terms of business generally—for the contrary view, namely, that if several similar major products are advertised, to put it in an industrial connotation, the total market will be increased. Everybody in industry knows that if someone who is selling razor blades introduces a new product and spends a lot of money on advertising it, sales will be gained for the new product but at the end of the day the total market for the product as a whole, including that of his competitors, will have been increased also.
It would be a great pity to put on to the Statute Book these very restrictive words in page 3, lines 3 to 5:
but only the British Travel Association shall have power to carry on any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Great Britain or any part of it".
I accept that a vast amount of the promotion of Great Britain overseas is, will be and should be done centrally by the British Travel Association. The association can pool resources and services. It


can do the job more economically. It can concentrate and provide the money and get the necessary spread overseas. But I cannot and will not accept that in no circumstances could the Scottish Tourist Board or the Wales Tourist Board better carry out the promotion of Scotland or Wales. Many people engaged in the Scottish tourist industry have represented to me that this is their view, too.
It is important that the House should have from the Minister tonight a clear indication whether the Scottish Tourist Board is in favour of what the Government propose. I should be very surprised if it is. I hope that the Minister will make a clear statement whether the Scottish Tourist Board approves of what the Government are doing in Clause 2.
11.45 p.m.
I hope that the Minister will even at this late hour recognise that it is not our purpose to split all the "Come to Britain" advertising into tiny fragments all over the world. Nothing could be further from my wish than that. But will he also accept that the Scottish Tourist Board—I cannot speak for the Wales Tourist Board, but I think that it would be the same—must in many respects have a life of its own and has to have contacts of its own within Scotland?
Here is one example. The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) does a lot of promotion for exports and so on overseas. The Scottish Tourist Board has worked with the Scottish Council on many occasions in bringing the tourist interest into its overseas promotions. I think it inconceivable that that will not happen again in the future, but the restriction in the relationship between the British Travel Association and the new Scottish Tourist Board, a restriction which is inevitable under the words of the Bill, will make it more difficult on occasion for the Scottish Tourist Board to be able to join in wholeheartedly with such activities as the Scottish Council may undertake to promote Scotland as such overseas. That is just one example.
Even if the Minister will not change his mind at this stage will he take consultations further, in view of the disquiet about this change in relationship between

the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Travel Association? It is at present a happy and fruitful relationship, and under the new arrangements it could still be happy and fruitful but for the fact that it will be too restrictive in the measure of discretion allowed to the junior body of the two.
First, then, will the Minister of State tell us whether the Scottish Tourist Board approved the new proposal? Second, even if he cannot agree to our contention, will he carry consultations further before we finally part with the Bill?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am sure that the House wants to come to a decision on these important matters, and no one can complain that we have not gone over the five basic arguments inherent in the large group of Amendments and the new Clause. Perhaps my Scottish friends and those who spoke with particular reference to Amendments Nos. 24 and 26 will be patient for a minute while I deal with the other matters first.
With one exception, we have all agreed that we are arguing here about functions and the way to discharge those functions rather than about the object of the functions. There was only one dissenting speech to the effect that the whole idea was bad, and I cannot believe that that speech was made entirely seriously, though I could be wrong.
First, on the question of function, I hope that the House will forgive me if I refer to the negotiations we have had for many years on the Scottish Tourist Board. Alas, England has never had a tourist board; it has only had a function of the B.T.A. as such, which has not been a truly federal function with Scotland and Wales. I think that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) got it slightly wrong when he alluded to what the present Scottish Tourist Board thinks about the B.T.A. at the moment. They have had their differences in the past, and they have not always agreed about the way things have been done. However, with the new system which we are constructing, I hope that there will be a more amicable arrangement than there has been.
Now, the argument about the size of the boards. The Scottish Tourist Board tried hard in its early years to be representative of everybody. It was a huge board


with over 40 members. It did not function very well. At the beginning it did—the enthusiasm was there—but over the years the very size of the board was one reason why it did not achieve as much as it might have. I exempt a number of very distinguished members of the board who worked very hard. I exempt Mr. Nicholson, who has been mentioned specifically. But he will be the first to admit, as he did three years ago, that a reformation of the board to a smaller number was better than the previous arrangement, and that was, in fact, secured in Scotland; but by a reduction of numbers from the previous size to 16, several organisations were excluded. The Scottish Tourist Board, whose annual meeting is arranged for 1st August, will roll down its voluntary flag and salute the statutory flag of the new board of the same name on the same day. It is very keen that the number should be reduced even further, to seven.
I suggest to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who made an admirable speech, that the kind of functioning he wants can be achieved only by an active executive committee of this number or perhaps slightly more—nine or so from Great Britain, because it discharges different functions. It is in relationship with three other boards, and as a corollary there must be close consultations between that active executive committee, as he called it, and a wider area. That area cannot be as small as 16, as the Amendment argues. When I met the representatives of tourism in Scotland about two weeks ago I had to meet 24 organisations—and I am sure that we missed some—and 45 people. I doubt very much whether one could deal with less than that number to be truly national, and truly to consult.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) mentioned the Countryside Commission. Both Commissions have been set up in their respective countries recently. Who would deny a place to the Countryside Commission in proper consultations with the boards of the respective countries?
We do not lay down that there should be a regional pattern in Scotland exactly rehearsed in Wales or England. The three countries are quite different, as is clear from consultations. The regional associations for Scotland are essential. Those

of us who know Scotland well know that there is a great difference between the Highlands and Islands, the North East, the Borders, the South West and Clydeside and Tayside. It is a small country of only 5 million people. I suspect that in England there would be many more regional organisations. They might be bigger, but of necessity England would have much more difficulty in trying to organise itself in a regional form. But these regional organisations should be entitled to access to the Board for the country concerned.
As a Scotsman, I do not accept that Scotland or Wales are regions. They are nations, and their national boards have a right to obtain access for their respective regions and themselves to the authority for Great Britain. Therefore, it is very important that we keep the numbers of the boards as they are, and it is equally important that there should be consultation machinery in the three countries. It should be flexible and, if necessary, should be different. This is essential for the working of the whole system.
I take the point that certain statutory organisations and some voluntary organisations that are national in character will need representation at the national level to consult with the board. We have tentatively agreed this in Scotland. It was a virtually unanimous agreement of the meeting to which I referred earlier that we should have a national body meeting once, twice, or perhaps three times a year in a small country like Scotland, where we should have not only national but regional representation, and that these people should have direct access to the seven men of the board. Below this organisation there should be regional organisations constituted in like manner for different parts of Scotland, sustained by the voluntary contributions not only of those in tourism but also of the local authorities and historic societies and other bodies with a great interest in the promotion of tourism.

Mr. Gower: Does not the Minister see that it would be an advantage in this case, as in private industry, to have non-executive directors? They make a valuable contribution to the success of a company. There could be non-executive members of the boards in addition to the nine.

Dr. Mabon: The point of argument between us is very narrow. We are suggesting that the so-called non-executive directors would meet less frequently with the board than the board meets, but at least they would be giving advice. I put it to the House that 16 is not enough for Scotland nor Wales, and I doubt whether it is enough for England, for it to be claimed as a representative body, which is what divides us in this argument. We say that if the choice is between executive and representative, then it must be executive, but we agree that on certain occasions there must be representative meetings.
I come now to the connection with overseas publicity. The Scottish Tourist Board already provides very good material for the British Travel Association, which is distributed abroad through different offices and by different methods, but in a British way. I was pleased by the remarks of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet about what is done in the United States by a distinguished Scotsman. There can be no argument on that score. We simply say that we should recognise that the B.T.A. is a vehicle for putting across the respective merits not only of the British but of the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board as well.
In this context, I point out that there is no reference in the Opposition Amendment to the English Tourist Board. Somehow, it is apparently not to be given this merit of promoting the interests of England. But surely it is logical that the B.T.A. would want to take the part of England as well as the English Tourist Board and seek to represent them overseas.
It would be wrong to have duplication of offices and personnel in different countries all over the world working for the three boards. Equally, it would be wrong to imagine that the B.T.A. should be solely responsible for the printing and preparation of material in respect of Scotland, England and Wales. I give the assurance that the authority will seek to take material from the respective boards and put them over abroad.

Mr. Blaker: After the Minister of State's speech, I see the point of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said in describing the

characteristic S.E.T. speech—the knockabout speech that my Scottish hon. Friends are used to hearing. The debate has shown what a pity it was that the Government framed Amendment No. 24 in the way they did. It has shown how difficult it has been to get a clear presentation of the arguments for and against subsection (3) of Clause 2. It would, perhaps, be wrong to speculate on why the Government framed their Amendment in that way, but it has certainly had the result of clouding the issue, and no doubt the Scottish people will take note.
The Minister of State read some representations from a document he had received from the B.T.A. I take it that, having established that precedent, he will be reading all the representations he gets or has got from the Association. It is a little late to ask him to read the ones he got about S.E.T., but it is a pity that he did not read them. In future debates we shall expect him to read everything he has got.
There are many things in the Bill which the B.T.A. is not happy about. We are not necessarily convinced that because the association takes a certain view that must be conclusive, but we considered its views on this matter and decided on balance that the proper course was to promote our Amendment dealing with subsection (3). There are different points of view on this matter.
12 m.
Subsection (3) does not remove from the new B.T.A. the responsibility for overseas promotion; it merely affects the manner in which that promotion is conducted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said, this is not a separatist subsection. It does not say that the Scots and the Welsh can dictate to the B.T.A. exactly how to conduct its overseas promotion. It is a matter of emphasis, and in putting it forward we believed that it was valid on strictly commercial grounds. We believe that to sell Scotland and Wales as Scotland and Wales will lead to better results, not simply for Scotland and Wales, but for Britain as a whole, in terms of bringing more tourists to Scotland and Wales who will come on to England.
I am sorry that the Minister of State did not give the House a better indication of the nature of the people who


will be appointed to the board, how the chairman will be selected and whether or not he will have business experience and experience in the travel industry. Since we are talking about the views of the British Travel Association, perhaps the House would like to hear its views on this. The British Travel Association is dead scared that the board may consist simply of do-gooders. The B.T.A. believes that the board should consist of people with commercial experience who will run it as a commercial enterprise, and that is a view which I share; but we have heard nothing to that effect from the Minister.
The Minister, perhaps rather tactlessly, referred to an inner cabinet. Inner cabinets have disadvantages in politics, as we have seen, but an inner cabinet is a well recognised feature of the commercial world, and many successful large companies have a central executive body and, outside that, a board consisting of part time members very much on the pattern we have suggested.
I am glad that the Minister emphasised the importance of voluntary tourist associations, with which we entirely agree, as we do about the importance of consultation. I was entirely unconvinced by what the Minister said about new Clause 4. He said that a formal structure was not required and that we should not tie the hands of the new tourist boards.

Those are exactly the sentiments which motivated my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself in framing the new Clause, which lays down guidelines to the boards without fettering their hands and allows them discretion in establishing a committee system.

My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) put tellingly the cardinal point at the centre of the debate about consultation, the committee system and the composition of the boards, that one cannot tell the many organisations concerned in tourism what to do. Results can be achieved only by persuading them to work in co-operation. This is the point above all others which we wished to bring out in the debate and on which we have had little reassurance from the Government.

I said in opening that I hoped that the industry, instead of asking what the boards will do to it, could be persuaded to ask a different question, what can it do in co-operation with the boards. I am sorry that the Minister has been able to give us so little reassurance in answer to that question.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 140; Noes 179.

Division No. 282.]
AYES
[12.7 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Emery, Peter
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Farr, John
Jopling, Michael


Astor, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Fortescue, Tim
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Foster, Sir John
Kirk, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kitson, Timothy


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Biggs-Davison, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lambton, Viscount


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Lane, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Grant, Anthony
Lubbock, Eric


Braine, Bernard
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Brewis, John
Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Campbell, B. (Oldnam, W.)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maddan, Martin


Chataway, Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Maginnis, John E.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus


Clark, Henry
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Miscampbell, Norman


Corfield, F. V.
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Costain, A. P.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper


Currie, G. B. H.
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Dance, James
Hill, J. E. B.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Dean, Paul
Hooson, Emlyn
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hunt, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Eden, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pardoe, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)




Peel, John
Sharples, Richard
Waddington, David


Percival, Ian
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Peyton, John
Silvester, Frederick
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sinclair, Sir George
Walters, Dennis


Pounder, Rafton
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Ward, Dame Irene


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Pym, Francis
Stodart, Anthony
Wiggin, A. W.


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wylie, N. R.


Ridsdale, Julian
Temple, John M.
Younger, Hn. George


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy



Royle, Anthony
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Russell, Sir Ronald
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Scott, Nicholas
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Albert


Albu, Austen
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Neal, Harold


Alldritt, Walter
Hamling, William
Newens, Stan


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hannan, William
Norwood, Christopher


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Barnett, Joel
Hazell, Bert
O'Malley, Brian


Beaney, Alan
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Albert E.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Henig, Stanley
Orme, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oswald, Thomas


Binns, John
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Bishop, E. S.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Pentland, Norman


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Hunter, Adam
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Boyden, James
Hynd, John
Probert, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Roebuck, Roy


Cant, R. B.
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carmichael, Neil
Kenyon, Clifford
Rowlands, E.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ryan, John


Coe, Denis
Lawson, George
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Concannon, J. D.




Conlan, Bernard
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Luard, Evan
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Taverne, Dick


Delargy, Hugh
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thornton, Ernest


Dempsey, James
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Dewar, Donald
McCann, John
Tuck, Raphael


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
MacColl, James
Urwin, T. W.


Dickens, James
Macdonald, A. H.
Varley, Eric G.


Dobson, Ray
McGuire, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Driberg, Tom
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunn, James A.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wallace, George


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackie, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Maclennan, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McNamara, J. Kevin
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Whitlock, William


Ennals, David
Manuel, Archie
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Marquand, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fernyhough, E.
Maxwell, Robert
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Foley, Maurice
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Woof, Robert


Freeson, Reginald
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)



Gardner, Tony
Moonman, Eric
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Ernest Perry.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moyle, Roland

New Clause 12

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT TAX: REFUND OF PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES IN CAFÉS OR RESTAURANTS

With a view to promoting the development of tourism, where an employer has paid selective employment tax for any contribution week beginning after the coming into force of this Act in respect of a person employed in a café

or restaurant the relevant Minister shall make to that employer in respect of that person on that week a payment of an amount equal to the tax paid.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 136; Noes 175.

Division No. 283.]
AYES
[12.15 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Peyton, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gurden, Harold
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Astor, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pounder, Rafton


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Higgins, Terence L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biffen, John
Hiley, Joseph
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Blaker, Peter
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Hooson, Emlyn
Ridsdale, Julian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rossi, Hugh, (Hornsey)


Braine, Bernard
Hunt, John
Royle, Anthony


Brewis, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott, Nicholas


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Chataway, Christopher
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Silvester, Frederick


Clark, Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kirk, Peter
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Anthony


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lane, David
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Temple, John M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy



Maddan, Martin



Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maginnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eden, Sir John
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, David


Emery, Peter
Monro, Hector
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Eyre, Reginald
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
More, Jasper
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fortescue, Tim
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wiggin, A. W.


Foster, Sir John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gibson-Watt, David
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Nott, John
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wylie, N. R.


Goodhart, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hn. George


Gower, Raymond
Pardoe, John



Grant, Anthony
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
Peel, John
Mr. David Steel and


Grieve, Percy
Percival, Ian
Mr. Eric Lubbock.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Bradley, Tom
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)


Albu, Austen
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Delargy, Hugh


Alldritt, Walter
Buchan, Norman
Dempsey, James


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dewar, Donald


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dobson, Ray


Barnett, Joel
Cant, R. B.
Driberg, Tom


Beaney, Alan
Carmichael, Neil
Dunn, James A.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Bidwell, Sydney
Coe, Denis
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Binns, John
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Bishop, E. S.
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Blackburn, F.
Conlan, Bernard
Ellis, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ennals, David


Booth, Albert
Dalyell, Tam
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Boyden, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)




Fernyhough, E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McBride, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCann, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Foley, Maurice
MacColl, James
Roebuck, Roy


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Macdonald, A. H.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael
Rowlands, E.


Gardner, Tony
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Ryan, John


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mackie, John
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.).
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hamling, William
MacPherson, Malcolm
Small, William


Hannan, William
Manuel, Archie
Spriggs, Leslie


Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David
Taverne, Dick


Hazell, Bert
Maxwell, Robert
Thornton, Ernest


Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Henig, Stanley
Mendelson, John
Tuck, Raphael


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley, Eric G.


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Huckfield, Leslie
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hynd, John
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Murray, Albert



Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gn)
Neal, Harold
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Newens, Stan
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Norwood, Christopher
Whitlock, William


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oakes, Gordon
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kelley, Richard
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Kenyon, Clifford
Oram, Albert E.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lawson, George
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Leadbitter, Ted
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Lestor, Miss Joan
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pentland, Norman
Woof, Robert


Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)



Loughlin, Charles
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Luard, Evan
Probert, Arthur
Mr. Ernest Perry and


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Harper.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION (CAITHNESS AND SUTHERLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for his participation in this debate at this late hour. We have corresponded about further education in agriculture for some time, since November, 1966. I want to put to him the now urgent need to improve and extend further education facilities for agriculture in the North of Scotland, and in Caithness and Sutherland in particular.
The main reason for this debate is the drastic drop in the farm work force in

Scotland of 8½ per cent., 3½ per cent. more than the average figure predicted by the N.E.D.C. for agriculture. I would draw the Government's attention to an important editorial entitled "Recruits", in the current issue of the Farming Leader, the journal of the Scottish N.F.U., which spells out stark facts. During the ten years 1958–68 there has been a drop of 40 per cent. to less than 40,000 in the number of full-time agricultural workers in Scotland. Even more alarming has been the recruitment into agriculture. Whereas, in 1958, over 10,000 young men under 20 were working full time in agriculture, in June last year the number had fallen to around 4,000.
If this trend is not arrested, the consequences for Scottish agriculture, and for those parts of Scotland whose prosperity is at present linked to agriculture, can be grave indeed. It is inconceivable that, in the hills and uplands in particular, agricultural productivity can hope to keep pace with a continuing decline in the total work force of this order. The loss to production may already be apparent in some parts of the country in the declining


hill sheep returns. The social impact on the Highlands in particular of a further flight from the land would be particularly damaging to communities which have no immediate prospect of alternative employment.
I have always argued that a proper wage structure for those employed in agriculture and forestry, relating earnings to skills, and starting wages at a substantially higher level, was a prerequisite for a healthy industry, and if young people are not going to be attracted away from the land. But I entirely agree with the N.F.U.'s editorial view that the image of the industry, apart altogether from its performance must be improved by paying much greater attention to the encouragement of training, and, in particular, of further education. If young men are to be attracted into farming, they must see that it is a career which demands skills and rewards ability.
It appears that the Government intend that the pattern for the provision of further education in agriculture in Scotland should adhere loosely to the recommendations of the 1967 Report of the Agriculture Committee of the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council. I should like to acknowledge that that report was workmanlike and comprehensive in its approach to the problem, but what it failed to impart was any sense of urgency. In some respects, moreover, I believe that the report was quite unrealistic, particularly in its proposals for regional farm centres offering courses in agriculture beyond the level of Stage I of the City and Guilds of London Institute examination.
Nor, I am afraid, have the Government shown a proper sense of urgency even in pushing for the implementation of the report, which they accept. What the report sometimes loses sight of is that the object of further education in agriculture at the sub-diploma level is to provide an essential practical training for young men in how to embark on farming as a means to earning a living. Most of them are rooted in certain areas and some have prospects of taking over ultimately the working of a family holding. For those employed on anything up to a medium-sized farm, and particularly in the north of Scotland, where the activity is frequently most intense at

certain seasons, the block release pattern of education is quite unattractive.
When, in 1966, I put to the Secretary of State proposals to build up an agricultural training centre at the Sutherland Technical School, using the local authority's 130-acre farm at Golspie, I was conscious of that difficulty. I believed in this and I believe now that for Easter Ross, Caithness and Sutherland it would still be justified by the numbers who would be prepared to come from that area. What is totally inconceivable is that more than one or two young men per annum would be prepared to go on a full-time or block release course to the regional centres in Fife or even East Aberdeenshire, as suggested in correspondence by my hon. Friend. This may be regrettable, but it is realistic. If further education in agriculture is not provided within the northern area, then the young men will simply forgo it altogether. I put it once again to my hon. Friend that in view of the continuing absence of a regional centre for sub-diploma courses for the North he ought to authorise local authorities in Caithness and Sutherland to proceed with that proposal, even at this date.
The second proposal I put to him is that he should authorise the provision of courses for Stage II of the City and Guilds Examination at Thurso Technical College. It appears that the Government's objection to this plan is based on the S.T.E.C.C. committee's finding that the present and likely number of agricultural workers made it improbable that there would be sufficient support to justify the provision of a "farm centre" there.
I do not quarrel with that; that is not what I am asking for. By the committee's own criteria, a farm centre with residential accommodation and an instructional farm might be hard to justify for Caithness and the area of Sutherland which I seek to assist by the provision of these courses. It may be argued, as it was by the committee at paragraph 49 of its report, that for City and Guilds Stage II an instructional farm is essential. I would point out that the committee was somewhat equivocal on this point and acknowledged at paragraph 31:
The lack of a farm attached to a centre can be, and indeed has been, overcome to a certain extent through the co-operation of local farmers who permit some of their facilities to be used for students' practical work.


I assure my hon. Friend that in Caithness at least, the farmers have shown admirable willingness to co-operate with the local education authority and the Thurso Technical College in the provision of these facilities.
If it is felt that these facilities are not of a comparable standard with existing farm centres, I would point out how few these centres are which provide up-to-date standard facilities. I suggest that perhaps the North of Scotland College of Agriculture might be able to act as an independent advisor and assessor of the suitability of certain farms in Caithness to offer the necessary practical education required.
It is also open to argument that those who wish to farm in the North could usefully be trained on farms where conditions are broadly similar rather than at a model farm operating as a somewhat artificial hybrid for educational purposes. I accept that that point is arguable. What is beyond argument is that the alternative so far proposed by the Government is quite unrealistic and wholly unacceptable. The suggestion that Stage II of the City and Guilds course should be pursued by my constituents at Elmwood Agricultural and Technical College, at Cupar, in Fife, on short full-time or block release basis is not notably sensible.
It will not happen, at any rate on a significant scale. It is in any case doubtful whether, by the S.T.E.C. committee's criteria, Elmwood could properly be described as a regional farm centre with residential accommodation and an instructional farm provided. In the letter addressed to me on 23rd April my hon. Friend suggested that in the longer term, provision would be made at Meikle Clinterty, in Aberdeenshire, for a regional farm centre providing courses for the north of Scotland as well as for the North-East. That may or may not be a suitable long term solution—I find it scarcely more attractive than Fife—but it does not meet the immediate and real demands for these courses.
Caithness has an active district apprenticeship committee. It has urged upon me the desirability of providing these courses. The Caithness area branch of the National Farmers' Union for Scotland, which also includes the Farr area of Sutherland, has also warmly supported the proposals. The Thurso College itself

considers the scheme practical and economical. In a letter dated 27th May, from the Caithness Director of Education, I have been told:
The Education Committee would certainly welcome your support in trying to persuade the Department to let us run a trial course.
In these circumstances, I would put it to my hon. Friend that the case for allowing this course to be run at Thurso is overwhelming. I hope that he will give an earnest of his concern for the provision of further education in agriculture by acceding to this request.

12.37 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): I welcome the opportunity to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on a subject about which, as he has said, we have already had a certain amount of correspondence. He has described the difficulties which arise in his constituency, and in the North of Scotland generally, very sympathetically.
Although I would not, obviously, accept all that my hon. Friend has said, some of his comments I would certainly accept. Obviously, the present position in the North of Scotland is not completely satisfactory. I think, however, that before I answer the specific points that he has put to me, I might just go over a little of the background to this problem—and some of the background that he has himself mentioned.
The basic situation with regard to the labour force in agriculture—and this, of course, affects the number of persons seeking education and training—is not untypical of certain other traditional industries where the unit cost of labour has risen more than other costs, and where the labour force is, shrinking. Because, however, of the importance of agriculture, the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council, which I shall describe as S.T.E.C.C.—the name by which it is normally known—agreed in 1963 to carry out a review of training and education needs in Scotland. This was before the passing of the Industrial Training Act, 1964, which brought into effect new machinery relating to the responsibility for industrial training.
It is worth pointing out that S.T.E.C.C. included among its representatives members from the National Farmers' Union


for Scotland, the Transport & General Workers' Union, the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, the Scottish Association of Young Farmers' Clubs, the Scottish Joint Apprenticeship Council for Agriculture and Horticulture, the Association of County Councils, the Scottish Counties of Cities Association, the Colleges of Agriculture in Scotland, as well as the assessors from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Scottish Education Department and the Ministry of Labour. It was, therefore, an expert committee, and it took evidence from all the bodies interested in the matters concerned.
Naturally, therefore, its report has an authority which the Government accepted on its publication, and which I accept now. The report was commended to authorities by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State after its publication in 1967, and it provided a national plan for further education in agriculture in Scotland. It made special reference to the significant decline in young male workers over the last decade, and went on to point out that the impact of mechanisation, application of improved techniques and increasing specialisation, along with the trend to larger units, had increased the rate of drift from the land.
I have not the time now to quote a great many figures, but perhaps I might add one or two to those quoted by my hon. Friend. In 1960, there were 4,652 young men aged 18 and under 20, whereas in 1968 the equivalent figure of those employed in agriculture was only 2,045.
I have taken out the figures for Caithness and Sutherland for those two years. There was a reduction between 1960 and 1968 from 93 to 31, so the figures in my hon. Friend's constituency are quite small. I have compared them with figures in the S.T.E.C.C. Report and I find that, taking Scotland as a whole, the decline during the last two years is very substantial. This decline, unfortunately, is likely to continue for reasons which are intrinsic in the development of agriculture in Scotland at present. This decline in numbers, taken with the scattered spread of population, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, obviously gives us new problems in the provision of courses of further education.
The S.T.E.C.C. review suggested a number of regional centres based upon instructional farms at which the Stage II and Stage III City and Guilds courses would be provided on a block release basis and also by day-release if necessary. These centres would be supported by a number of centres providing the less advanced Stage I courses on a day-release basis. The report came firmly to the conclusion that for Stage II courses an instructional farm was essential. For Stage I courses this was not so regarded and would not have been practicable. It was admitted in the report that in the absence of an instructional farm it was possible to provide a certain amount of instruction by using the facilities available on local farms, but the report was in no doubt at all—and the committee had the benefit of a wide range of expertise among its members—that, as it said in paragraph 49, an instructional farm was essential for the regional centres.
The report went on to propose a distribution for both types of centre, but concluded that in the North of Scotland the number of agricultural workers made it most unlikely that in the foreseeable future there would be sufficient support to justify the provision of an instructional farm centre on the mainland. It accordingly recommended only the provision of Stage I centres at Thurso and Inverness Technical Colleges and envisaged that students who wished to advance their studies should attend a farm centre elsewhere.
Since the publication of the report in 1967 the numbers of young workers in Caithness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland and Inverness have continued to decline. The Stage I course at Thurso has been established, but it has attracted only 11 and 9 students for the first and second years respectively and at Inverness the Stage I course will be offered for the first time in 1969–70. An instructional farm is a costly venture as all the figures demonstrate and there could be no justification on the basis of present trends of attendance for setting up a full instructional farm centre in Caithness.
In the longer term, the farm centre which will best meet the needs, not only of the North-East but also the North, will be that now being established by Aberdeenshire education authority at Meikle Clinterty. It will not however be fully operational for some time yet.


Accordingly, it had been suggested to Caithness education authority, and I suggester in a letter to my hon. Friend on 23rd April, that after consultation with Fife education authority students from Caithness who wished to advance their studies by following the Stage II course might go on a block release basis to Elmwood College at Cupar in the session 1969–70.
It was recognised—I recognise it now—that to travel as far afield as Cupar is inconvenient for employees. I also accept that the employers would prefer a system which allowed day-release rather than block release. This is not possible in this case, where the courses are being provided at a considerable distance from the students' home area.
Nevertheless, on block release itself I must tell my hon. Friend that, despite his criticisms, I think that it will be an essential part of the national plan, on which we are now operating, that block release should be accepted in the long term as the only solution feasible in areas where the numbers of students do not justify an instructional farm within daily travelling distance.
Although block release can have certain disadvantages, compared with day release it can have certain advantages from the point of view of the operation of the farms. So I do not think that the balance of advantage lies by any means all on one side.
The long-term plan, as I have said, must rest as it does at the moment, and it would be a great pity and detrimental to agricultural education if there should be any question now of abandoning the long-term aims that we have had set out for us in the S.T.E.C.C. Report and subsequently accepted by the Government.
However, I appreciate the shorter-term difficulties and the representations which my hon. Friend has made to me. We have had representations from the district apprenticeship committee, as he said in his speech, and we have also had an assurance from the Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Industrial Training Board that if Stage II courses can be provided locally at Thurso Technical College it would ensure that the necessary instructional work would be made available

on local farms. My hon. Friend said tonight that the local education authority has confirmed to him very recently that it is still anxious to provide Stage II courses at Thurso Technical College.
In view of all that and, in particular, in view of the representations that my hon. Friend has made to me, I have looked at the matter again, and I am glad to be able to tell him that, looking at this as a temporary problem and before the provision of the regional centre in Aberdeenshire, I should be willing, if the education authority were now to put forward a proposal for Stage II courses at Thurso Technical College, to look upon this proposition favourably.
It would have to depend on the appropriate facilities being made available, and staffing and facilities at the farms in the locality. It would also have to depend—I make this clear to my hon. Friend—on there being a satisfactory number of enrolments, but, in view of the keenness of the National Farmers' Union in the area to have this course, and of the assurances of support that we have been given, I would hope very much that that would not provide an insuperable difficulty.
If, therefore, we could get these various requirements and get a satisfactory number of enrolments, and so on, I should be glad to have my Department approve a Stage II course at Thurso Technical College which would meet the problem of students wishing to enter Stage II in the current year. As to next year, we could look at the matter again, but, provided that the course had been successful this year, I should have thought that next year a similar course could be provided, again on this temporary basis.
I hope, therefore, that what I have said to my hon. Friend, while not satisfying him in any way in the longer term as I appreciate, will at least be of some satisfaction to him in the shorter term, and, if we can get these conditions satisfied, as I think we can, will meet the shorter-term problem without, from my point of view, prejudicing the longer-term arrangement, which, as I say, I am very anxious not to see abandoned or even disturbed substantially in any way.
I am glad to be able to make this proposal for the short-term and greatly hope


that my hon. Friend and those whom he represents in the area concerned will take up the opportunity which is now open to them. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the persistence which he has shown over a very long period on this matter. I very much appreciate his persistence

And I hope that it will be appreciated in the area of his constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to One o'clock.